XXL - one size doesn't fit all

fearn · 14th September 2005, 01:57 AM

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 · 14th September 2005, 01:35 PM

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 · 14th September 2005, 02:25 PM

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 · 14th September 2005, 04:51 PM

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 · 14th September 2005, 05:15 PM

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?

14th September 2005, 02:25 PM	#3
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	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 Last edited by VVV; 14th September 2005 at 02:36 PM.

14th September 2005, 04:51 PM	#4
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	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.... Attached Images

14th September 2005, 01:57 AM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	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

14th September 2005, 01:35 PM	#2
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	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

14th September 2005, 05:15 PM	#5
Ahriman Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hungary Posts: 72	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?