XXL - one size doesn't fit all

[Mark]

I've never quite figured out the giant blades, myself. Sometimes they are just too big to be explained by an extra-large owner. Here is a super-sized dha, which even leaving aside the blade had to have been made for a HAY_UUGE person if it was made-to-fit:

Just compare the handles of these two (the blade of the top one is of a pretty typical length, actually (about 22 inches, or 58 cm), and the lower one's blade is on the short side at about 16.5 inches, or about 42 cm). But the handle of the top one is unusually long for this style of dha, and has a diameter about half again as big as the lower one, which is a more typical length. I am 6'1" (1.85 meters) and the gripping part of my hand, the distance from the end of my thumb along to the end of my fore-finger, is around 7.5 inches long (around 17 cm). The lower handle feels fine, but the top one feels funny because it is so fat, and ones grip on it feels insecure and uncomfortable.

I just don't think that there were many Thai around in the 18th-19th century who were significantly taller than I am. My guess is that it was either a status symbol of some kind, or ... um ... overcompensating for something.

Here is another fun one:

This is a Vietnamese mandarin and his entourage, circa 1900. I am guessing that the big guy on the far left may be around my height (and he doesn't look to be ethnically Vietnamese, so he doesn't count as a guy they might have made huge swords for ). Now check out in the group on the right, the third and fifth men from the right in the front row. Both are holding dha that I would estimate are about 4 feet long, or more. The sword #3 is holding looks quite a bit longer (5 feet?). These would all be symbols of the mandarin's power and authority, I expect.

[fearn]

Hi All,

Something to note about oversized weapons: yes, they could be status symbols. A good example of this is the currently called "Bagua dao" that you see for sale in catalogs. The current name is because Baguazhang is about the only martial art outside China that uses this particular weapon.

However, if you dig deeply enough, you find that these oversized daos were actually associated with the imperial court, as was Bagua (one Bagua master was the Dowager Empress's personal bodyguard). They are status symbols, basically a flagrant and oversized use of metal. If you've ever played with one or seen a Bagua master swing one, they're also pretty darned impressive. Regardless of what the catalogs say, you're supposed to swing it with one hand (you can, as long as you have strong wrists and use your hips...).

Now, this contrasts with the horsechoppers (pu dao) and the European two-handed swords (or the medieval Japanese "field weapons" like the bisento and the o-kama). These weapons were often (not always!) built for the purpose of cutting big things down to size.

The contrast I'm drawing is between oversized weapons built primarily for display and intimidation, and those built for cutting down pikes, horses, and other recalcitrant targets. In the real world, obviously, these two functions get mixed, so we have monstrously huge two-handed swords built for display and Bagua masters who like using the big dao in duels. Still, it's a distinction worth thinking about.

my 0.02 cents,

F

[Ahriman]

That's right, but I didn't even consider this possibility in this case (I mean, the topic-starter case) as the first oversized is simpler, more utilitarian than the small version, which removes the status-symbol variation. Of course, the westerners had huge paradenschwerter, but you can easily recognise one from the extreme decorations. The myarmoury.com twohander* is different, as it has no decorations, just as these swords. The next posted pic with the pair of dhas is different, as the big one has much more decor on it, if I'm right.

* the one with the 7" wide blade

[VVV]

Thanks all for the feedback so far.
I agree with Ahriman that status probably isn't the case with my two exampes.
But I see the point in them being intimidating (Fearn).
When discussing with a well known FMA Grandmaster he told me that traditionally;
the higher the rank/status, the smaller the personal blade.
I forgot to ask him if it was because of a smaller blade, vs a larger blade, reflected greater skill
of the user or if it was because he had bodyguards to take care of potential adversaries?
So one other possibility is perhaps that the examples I have were developed to compensate lack of martial skills?
Unless they are examples of completely other kind of weapons, not mentioned in the standard reference works?

Michael

[Spunjer]

here are a couple of XXL weapons from the Moroland.

Barung:
OAL: 31"
Blade: 25.25"
Blade width: 2.5"

Kris:
OAL: 32"
Blade: 28"
Blade width (avg): 1.75"
Gangya Wide point: 6"

i don't think these two has anything to do with status neither. they're very simple in form, nothing extravagant.

btw, i'm not disputing what the FMA Grandmaster said, but that's the first time i've heard that....

[Ahriman]

Using a smaller blade as a symbol is quite suicidical, I think. There's always something that goes wrong, and giving even MORE chance to the opponent is just crazy. So I'd bet the bodyguard version.
Btw, in my experience, with anything longer than 10", the longer-than-average form of a weapon is the more difficult to use. I mean, if the "average" is, say, 20", then it's average because most fighters chose those. Which means that it's a well-working form-lenght combination. Anything longer would be slower, and would need more calculation while fighting, as well as more power behind them to move as fast.
So, if the size is the symbol of skill, then longer-wider-heavier would mean better. It's easier to get someone with a longsword than with a huge greatsword which has a hilt only a bit longer than the longsword's, isn't it? (Btw, I love twohanders)
I don't like the "compensating for something"-part... it's just like as Clements wrote in the "politically correct way of learning swordsmanship". Back then, who would've cared about that?