QA問(wèn)答：為什么中國(guó)的大刀上要安裝許多金屬圓環(huán)？它們起什么作用？
Why do Chinese big swords have many small rings?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友：1.當(dāng)大刀直立時(shí)，環(huán)在重力作用下下落，使細(xì)長(zhǎng)的刀身重心更靠近手掌，更容易控制
2、同樣，當(dāng)?shù)稊[動(dòng)時(shí)，圓環(huán)會(huì)帶著慣性移動(dòng)，增加刀擺動(dòng)方向的穩(wěn)定性
正文翻譯
Wenxiang Chen
1.When the sword stands upright, the ring falls under the action of gravity, bringing the center of gravity of the elongated blade closer to the palm, making it easier to control
2. Similarly, when the knife is swung, the ring will move with inertia, increasing the stability of the knife's swing direction
3. Each ring has weight, which can add weight to the knife and help the knife user exercise their body. Choose different numbers of rings based on your own strength
1.當(dāng)大刀直立時(shí)，環(huán)在重力作用下下落，使細(xì)長(zhǎng)的刀身重心更靠近手掌，更容易控制
2、同樣，當(dāng)?shù)稊[動(dòng)時(shí)，圓環(huán)會(huì)帶著慣性移動(dòng)，增加刀擺動(dòng)方向的穩(wěn)定性
3.每個(gè)環(huán)都有重量，可以增加刀的重量，幫助刀使用者鍛煉身體。根據(jù)自己的實(shí)力選擇不同數(shù)量的圓環(huán)
4. The ring will make a sound when waved, which is more ornamental and performative,This is also a symbol of etiquette, representing that I will not ambush you, but rather engage in a dignified duel with you
5.The ring is designed to prevent the blade from entering the enemy's body（Or wooden stakes） too much and getting stuck and unable to be pulled out. You don't need to split a person in half to kill them
Therefore, the sword with a ring is mainly used for ancient people's swordsmanship training and street martial arts performances,It basically won't appear on the real battlefield
4.圓環(huán)揮動(dòng)時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)出聲音，更具觀賞性和表演性，這也是禮儀的象征，代表我不會(huì)伏擊你，而是與你進(jìn)行一場(chǎng)有尊嚴(yán)的決斗
5.環(huán)的設(shè)計(jì)是為了防止刀刃進(jìn)入敵人身體（或木樁）過(guò)多而被卡住而無(wú)法拔出。你不需要將一個(gè)人劈成兩半來(lái)殺死他們
因此帶環(huán)刀主要用于古代人的刀法訓(xùn)練和街頭武術(shù)表演，在真正的戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上基本不會(huì)出現(xiàn)
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
5.The ring is designed to prevent the blade from entering the enemy's body（Or wooden stakes） too much and getting stuck and unable to be pulled out. You don't need to split a person in half to kill them
Therefore, the sword with a ring is mainly used for ancient people's swordsmanship training and street martial arts performances,It basically won't appear on the real battlefield
4.圓環(huán)揮動(dòng)時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)出聲音，更具觀賞性和表演性，這也是禮儀的象征，代表我不會(huì)伏擊你，而是與你進(jìn)行一場(chǎng)有尊嚴(yán)的決斗
5.環(huán)的設(shè)計(jì)是為了防止刀刃進(jìn)入敵人身體（或木樁）過(guò)多而被卡住而無(wú)法拔出。你不需要將一個(gè)人劈成兩半來(lái)殺死他們
因此帶環(huán)刀主要用于古代人的刀法訓(xùn)練和街頭武術(shù)表演，在真正的戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上基本不會(huì)出現(xiàn)
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 20 )
收藏
Maciej Za?uckiThat doesn’t make much sense. Those rings will move the center of gravity only by the diameter of one ring.
這沒(méi)有多大意義。這些環(huán)只會(huì)將重心移動(dòng)一個(gè)環(huán)的直徑。
What’s more, they’ll move the center of gravity just by adding them. If the intention was to keep the center of gravity close to the hand, then it would make more sense to just not add the rings.
更重要的是，如果添加它們僅僅為了移動(dòng)重心。如果目的是保持重心靠近手，那么不添加環(huán)會(huì)更有意義。
Peter Chandon’t equate this sword to a European long sword or even a Chinese long sword. They have center of balance much closer to the hilt. But this broadsword is top heavy. It functions more like an axe, with a long blade of a sword.
The biggest distinction is you have to swing in circular motion. You can’t change direction at will like with a sword. At least not at the opposite direction.
不要將這把刀等同于歐洲長(zhǎng)劍，甚至中國(guó)長(zhǎng)劍。他們的平衡中心更靠近刀柄。但這把大刀頭重腳輕。它的功能更像是一把斧頭，帶有劍的長(zhǎng)刃。
最大的區(qū)別是你必須以圓周運(yùn)動(dòng)揮動(dòng)。不能像拿劍那樣隨意改變方向。至少不是在相反的方向。
Go FishI would say it practically is an axe. At least sickle-like axes known in Asia are of similar balance
我想說(shuō)它實(shí)際上是一把斧子，至少亞洲已知的鐮刀狀斧頭具有類(lèi)似的平衡性。
Jatter PerdoeYeah. The rings weren’t there in real war blades. They only seem to be there on ones used in martial arts demos and ceremonial places. My assumption is that the sounds they make entertain the audience more. I seriously doubt they serve any actual combat reason.
是的。真正的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)刀中沒(méi)有這些環(huán)。它們似乎只出現(xiàn)在武術(shù)演示和儀式場(chǎng)所使用的東西上。我的假設(shè)是他們發(fā)出的聲音更能娛樂(lè)觀眾。我嚴(yán)重懷疑它們有任何實(shí)際戰(zhàn)斗的意義。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Peter ChanThese are 2 blades swords. They are very different than the one bladed broadsword shown in main post. Fighting style is very different too.
你給的圖是雙刃劍。它們與主帖中顯示的單刃大刀非常不同。戰(zhàn)斗風(fēng)格也有很大不同。（圖略）
HongThose are jian (劍), the broadsword is a dadao (大刀).
這些都是劍，題主說(shuō)的其實(shí)是大刀
Jakob J?derboWouldn't it be mass of 1 ring but combined diameter? The lowest position replaced by the top position+1, all other being filled by adjacent rings.
不是1個(gè)環(huán)的質(zhì)量而是所有環(huán)的總和嗎？最低位置由頂部位置+1 替換，所有其他位置由相鄰環(huán)填充。
Maciej Za?uckiNo, the whole array of the rings will only flip by the diameter of one ring upwards or downwards, so it will shift only by moving the weight of one ring by the diameter of one ring. It would make much more sense to have one big ring if that was the sole goal. It would be even better to just have some sliding part that would be shot out with the centrifugal force but this is still pointless due to conservation of energy. Unless you want to make this a 2-in-1 tool that has the center of gravity close to the palm for short strokes and quickly move it to the tip for swinging it. Simply shifting the mass will not change how much energy it has but having more mass at the tip means that you can put more energy into a swing at the same speed.
There was some recording of a simple experiment that everyone could repeat. If you start rotating on an office chair with your hands out, then when you pull your hands near your chest, you will start spinning faster. That’s because you still have the same energy but the mass is closer to the center and holds less energy than it held being much further away. If you want agility, you want to have the center of mass close to the pivot point and if you want to put more energy into the swing, you want the mass to be as far as you can. It will take much more energy to make a swing but it will also take much more energy to stop it and that’s the point of heavy swings.
不，整個(gè)圓環(huán)陣列只會(huì)向上或向下翻轉(zhuǎn)一個(gè)環(huán)的直徑，因此它只會(huì)通過(guò)將一個(gè)環(huán)的重量移動(dòng)一個(gè)環(huán)的直徑來(lái)移動(dòng)。如果這是唯一的目標(biāo)，那么擁有一枚環(huán)會(huì)更有意義。如果有一些滑動(dòng)部分會(huì)在離心力的作用下被射出，那就更好了，但由于能量守恒，這仍然沒(méi)有意義。除非你想把它做成一個(gè)二合一工具，重心靠近手掌進(jìn)行格擋，然后力量快速移動(dòng)到尖端進(jìn)行揮動(dòng)。簡(jiǎn)單地改變質(zhì)量不會(huì)改變它所具有的能量，但在尖端有更多的質(zhì)量意味著你可以在相同的速度下將更多的能量投入到劈砍中。
有一些簡(jiǎn)單實(shí)驗(yàn)的記錄，每個(gè)人都可以重復(fù)。如果你開(kāi)始在辦公椅上旋轉(zhuǎn)并伸出雙手，那么當(dāng)你將雙手拉近胸部時(shí)，你會(huì)開(kāi)始旋轉(zhuǎn)得更快。那是因?yàn)槟闳匀痪哂邢嗤哪芰?，但質(zhì)量更靠近中心，并且比遠(yuǎn)離中心時(shí)擁有更少的能量。如果你想要靈活性，你希望重心靠近樞軸點(diǎn)，如果你想在劈砍上投入更多能量，你將希望重心盡可能遠(yuǎn)。劈砍需要更多的能量，但停止劈砍也需要更多的能量，這就是劇烈劈砍的要點(diǎn)。
George Huestis… would be a fun fantasy weapon though, something like a quarterstaff with ball-bearings inside that can be released to the end of the staff with a thumb knob. Then you can just let your end of the staff go and it’ll swing around weirdly and hit people in ways your superhero main character “can totally predict.”
Fairly certain it wouldn’t work IRL for various and sundry physics reasons, but it feels like there’s potential for bullshit handwaving there, an excuse for your warrior monk to be able to beat up ten men in a fair fight.
這會(huì)是一個(gè)有趣的奇幻武器，類(lèi)似于一根四分之一的法杖，內(nèi)部裝有可以通過(guò)拇指按鈕釋放到法杖末端的滾珠。然后你可以放開(kāi)法杖的一端，它會(huì)怪異地?cái)[動(dòng)并以超級(jí)英雄主人公“完全命中”的方式擊中人們。
相當(dāng)肯定在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中由于各種物理原因它不會(huì)起作用，但感覺(jué)有潛力用來(lái)吹牛逼，為武僧戰(zhàn)士能夠在公平比賽中打敗十個(gè)人提供借口。
Peter ChanThis is not a fantasy weapon. This is in fact a standard issued weapon in Chinese military throughout the history. At least the lighter variant.
If you joined up with the military, local militia, security guards, constable (police), they would give you this sword. It’s a broad sword with the center of balance toward the front.
Why? Because it’s easy to pick up and train. It fights a bit like an axe/mace where the front is heavy. The weight helps the impact.
The flimsier 2 edged long sword is actually less useful because it’s much harder to get good with it.
This is a a lot harder to make/mass produce than the broad sword. The thin edge is easily broken if the smithing process isn’t good. Whereas even a junior smith can make broadswords.
這不是幻想武器。這實(shí)際上是中國(guó)軍隊(duì)歷史上的制式武器。至少是更輕的版本。
如果你加入軍隊(duì)、地方民兵、保安、警察，他們會(huì)給你一把大刀。這是一把重心朝前的單刃武器。
為什么？因?yàn)樗苋菀咨鲜趾陀?xùn)練。它的戰(zhàn)斗有點(diǎn)像斧頭/狼牙棒，前部很重。重量有助于殺傷。
更脆弱的兩刃長(zhǎng)劍實(shí)際上不太有用，因?yàn)樗y使用。
而且比大刀更難制造/批量生產(chǎn)。如果鍛造工藝不好，薄邊很容易折斷。而即使是初級(jí)鐵匠也可以制作大刀。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
It isn’t the location of the center of mass that makes it fantasy, it’s the idea of internal weights that can be used to change where the center of mass is mid-stroke.
… but maybe that’s also been done, my knowledge of medi weaponry basically extends to “swords were sidearms you used in the event you found yourself not behind a pointy stick, useful primarily to wave about yourself until you could get back behind a pointy stick.”
這并不是質(zhì)心位置的位置使其成為幻想，而是內(nèi)部的重量可以用來(lái)改變質(zhì)心的想法。但也許這已經(jīng)有了，我對(duì)中世紀(jì)武器的了解基本上僅限于“劍是你在沒(méi)有靠譜的棍棒時(shí)使用的武器，主要用于揮舞自己直到你能夠回到靠譜的棍棒后?！?/b>
Mass of 1 ring, combined diameter is equivalent to mass of whole array, 1 diameter. But that is not equivalent to mass of 1 ring 1 diameter, which ot sounds as if you are suggesting. Am I reading you right?
1個(gè)環(huán)的質(zhì)量，組合后等于整個(gè)陣列的質(zhì)量。雖然只平移1個(gè)直徑，但這并不等于一個(gè)環(huán)1的質(zhì)量，這聽(tīng)起來(lái)像是你在暗示。我讀對(duì)了嗎？
Right, I looked at it from a wrong angle :)
對(duì)，我看錯(cuò)角度了：）
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Yeah. I can't imagine trying to hew through someone with a bunch of rings on the back of the sword. They would certainly cause issues cutting through things. Look awesome though.
是 啊我無(wú)法想象要用刀背上的一堆環(huán)來(lái)砍斷一個(gè)人。它們肯定會(huì)引發(fā)破壞性的問(wèn)題。不過(guò)看起來(lái)棒極了。
That blade is plenty wide enough to cause a fatal cut before the rings interfere.
那把刀片足夠?qū)挘阋栽诃h(huán)干擾之前造成致命的割傷。
It's not the first cut you should worry about, it's the second one. If your sword is stuck in the first guy, you're gonna have a bad time fighting the second guy.
這不是你應(yīng)該擔(dān)心的第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，這是第二個(gè)。如果你的劍卡在第一個(gè)人身上，你和第二個(gè)人的戰(zhàn)斗會(huì)很糟糕。
Maybe it's not a sword fashioned for cutting through but for maiming?
I also don't like the concept too much. I prefer saber designs with a thickened tip for increased momentum instead.
也許這不是一把用來(lái)砍人而是用來(lái)致殘的刀？
我也不太喜歡這個(gè)概念。我更喜歡刀尖加厚的設(shè)計(jì)，以增加動(dòng)量。
Yeah, I mean, I think the answer is correct in that it has limited utility in combat, but is basically cool for demonstration or training.
是的，我的意思是，我認(rèn)為答案是正確的，因?yàn)樗趹?zhàn)斗中的效用有限，但對(duì)于演示或訓(xùn)練來(lái)說(shuō)很酷。
Yeah, point #4 is probably the reason as it feels on the mark. The other answers largely make no sense.
是的，第4點(diǎn)可能是正確的原因。其他答案基本上沒(méi)有意義。
Given the average size of these swords, I'd imagine it would do just fine against calvary and have a fair stand up against heavy armor… I cannot believe that a sword like this would be made without a real purpose. Similarly to the spears and swords with colorful feathers or scarves or rope on them as a means of distracting your opponent, I feel like this particular sword (which I will probably always refer to as a horse chopper thanks to Kenshi) is more about removing limbs, heads, and crushing armor since the balance of weight is more aligned with that of a mace or even a halberd. These swords have plenty of space before you get to the rings to chop an arm clean off, and to sever bones of thighs before getting to the rings. As an additional note - Those same rings when presented with force from below create a nice wedge to help separate whatever is being cut for easier release (further cementing the idea its use was for dismembering their enemies and or the mounts of said enemies.)
考慮到這些大刀的平均尺寸，我想它在對(duì)抗騎兵時(shí)表現(xiàn)得很好，并且在對(duì)抗重甲時(shí)也能有不錯(cuò)的表現(xiàn)……我無(wú)法相信像這樣的刀會(huì)在沒(méi)有真正目的的情況下被制造出來(lái)。與帶有彩色羽毛、圍巾或繩索的長(zhǎng)矛和劍類(lèi)似，作為分散對(duì)手注意力的手段，我覺(jué)得這把特殊的大刀（我可能總是將其稱(chēng)為斬馬刀）更多的是去砍四肢、頭部和破碎盔甲，因?yàn)樗闹亓扛侠茄腊羯踔陵挠梅?。在你進(jìn)入貼身戰(zhàn)斗之前，這些大刀有足夠的空間來(lái)砍掉手臂，并在到達(dá)貼身距離之前切斷大腿的骨頭。作為補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明 - 當(dāng)劈砍時(shí)，這些相同的環(huán)會(huì)形成一個(gè)很好的楔子，以幫助分離正在切割的任何東西，以便更容易釋放刀身（進(jìn)一步鞏固了它的用途是肢解敵人和/或所述敵人的坐騎的想法。）
No fighting blade is effectively designed to cut “through” things. They are meant to inflict maximum damage on the human body but cutting through it is optimistic.
沒(méi)有一把戰(zhàn)斗刀是設(shè)計(jì)用來(lái)“穿透”東西的。它們旨在對(duì)人體造成最大的傷害，但穿透沒(méi)什么意義。
Also, they are designed to be parried.
Chinese broadswords are standard issued weapons for military and militia throughout Chinese history. They are much easier to teach beginners.
So in combat, you will see newbies banging the swords against enemies repeatedly. It is taking toll parrying these swings. Eventually the repeated impacts will tire out their enemy and knock their weapon off. Sort of like a mace.
But unlike maces, these swords are lighter and much easier to wield than maces.
而且，它們被設(shè)計(jì)成可以格擋。
中國(guó)大刀是中國(guó)歷史上軍隊(duì)和民兵的制式武器。他們更容易教初學(xué)者。
所以在戰(zhàn)斗中，你會(huì)看到新手不斷地用刀對(duì)敵人進(jìn)行劈砍。阻止這些劈砍需要付出代價(jià)。最終，反復(fù)的撞擊會(huì)讓敵人疲憊不堪，并擊落他們的武器。有點(diǎn)像狼牙棒。
但與狼牙棒不同的是，這些大刀比狼牙棒更輕，更容易揮舞。
Very interesting…I was not aware of that.
很有趣……我之前不知道。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
This sword only has one cutting face - it is not a double-edged sword.
這把刀只有一個(gè)切面——它不是一把劍。
But it would have to pass through material to hew it.
但它必須穿過(guò)材料才能完成切割。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Yes, but no.
In real combat you rarely have an opportunity to cut through anything. If you are an ordinary person, you shouldn’t commit too much strength into each hit. They will tire you out quicker and also make you vulnerable to counter attack.
The full intention of this sword is to slash, while maintaining great defense against counter attack (with the long edge of the blade). You can certainly pierce and hack, but it’s not the best piercing weapon due to its weight and size.
你說(shuō)得對(duì)，但不是這樣。
在真正的戰(zhàn)斗中，你很少有機(jī)會(huì)切開(kāi)任何東西。如果你是一個(gè)普通人，每次擊打時(shí)不應(yīng)該投入太多的力氣。它們會(huì)讓你更快地疲憊不堪，也讓你容易受到反擊。
這把刀的全部意圖是砍殺，同時(shí)保持反擊前的強(qiáng)大防御。你可以用刺和砍的方式攻擊，但由于其重量和尺寸，它并不是最好的刺穿武器。
Nope, it will cause more pain as the rings will rip the muscle and skin apart.
不，它會(huì)引起更多的疼痛，因?yàn)榄h(huán)會(huì)撕裂肌肉和皮膚。
You watched too much movies if you think every swordsman can hack through his target clean like knife over butter.
In most cases, the back side of the sword will never see contact.
你看了太多的電影，也許你認(rèn)為每個(gè)劍客都能像黃油上的刀子一樣干凈利落地切割他的目標(biāo)。
在大多數(shù)情況下，劍的背面永遠(yuǎn)用不上。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Well, I'd be willing to say this weapon was never used in combat outside of a movie. I can't find any indication it existed outside of martial arts studios, nor anything that seems to indicate a date where it first appeared in use.
There's no practical reason for rings outside of maybe training. A thicker spine or taper achieves weight distribution without need of adding holes and risking catastrophic failure.
In fact, even some of the famous historical swords of China, such as the Niuweidao, were only invented in the 19th century and used by civilians, though widely appear in historical movies.
好吧，我更愿意說(shuō)這種武器從未在電影之外的戰(zhàn)斗中使用過(guò)。我找不到任何跡象表明它存在于武術(shù)工作室之外，也沒(méi)有任何跡象表明它首次出現(xiàn)使用的日期。
除了訓(xùn)練之外，沒(méi)有任何實(shí)際理由需要這些圓環(huán)。較厚的脊背可以實(shí)現(xiàn)重量分布，而無(wú)需添加孔和冒災(zāi)難性故障的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
事實(shí)上，即使是中國(guó)的一些歷史名劍，如牛尾刀，雖然在歷史電影中廣泛出現(xiàn)，但直到19世紀(jì)才被發(fā)明并被平民使用。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
You strike me like a guy who may know more than me about history of Chinese martial art. So don’t feel patronized if I say more than I should, it’s for other readers.
Martial art in Chinese history was one of the thing you could learn that would bring insane riches in the past. The ability to win a fight would make you dominate the society back then. But as gun technology got better and better, martial art slowly faded in obscurity. Martial art is still important, but it’s a bunch of simple moves we learn in case of a close quarter combat. But nobody dedicates 10–20 years to perfect anything any more. There is almost no reward beside bragging rights.
Chinese martial artists aren’t the best record keepers, unlike historians. Or, more like they kept it all to themselves. So most of the things we know are from myths exaggerated by bystanders. We don’t know what is 100% true and what is exaggerated. In wuxia, similar to “Western”, the myths sometimes really work to their advantage. Some survive entirely on exaggerating myths to deter challengers. Some purposely mislead their myths to mask their real skills.
And worst of all, like today’s Intellectual Properties, these people spent their whole life living and gaining experience but keeping it to themselves and only transferred these knowledge to their most trusted students. If their students didn’t get it… the knowledge would be lost.
Even if you read Chinese, the record keeping is subpar at best. So you say it’s never been used? Ok. What if it was once popular? It was often told by words of mouth by tavern story tellers. And these records died with them.
But I do know one thing: accomplished martial artists weren’t afraid to have their signature. So a weapon with rings can be an awesome signature. Even it may not be as practical as you think.
你給我的印象就像一個(gè)可能比我更了解中國(guó)武術(shù)歷史的人。所以，如果我說(shuō)得過(guò)多，請(qǐng)不要覺(jué)得我在攻擊你，這是為了其他讀者。
中國(guó)歷史上的武術(shù)在過(guò)去是可以帶來(lái)財(cái)富的一門(mén)學(xué)問(wèn)。能打贏仗，就能主宰當(dāng)時(shí)的社會(huì)。但隨著槍械技術(shù)越來(lái)越完善，武術(shù)慢慢地淡出了人們的視線。武術(shù)仍然很重要，但它是我們?cè)诮嚯x戰(zhàn)斗中學(xué)習(xí)的一系列簡(jiǎn)單動(dòng)作。但沒(méi)有人再花10到20年的時(shí)間去完善任何東西。除了用于吹牛之外，幾乎沒(méi)有任何獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。
與歷史學(xué)家不同，中國(guó)武術(shù)家并不是最好的記錄保存者?；蛘?，更像是他們把這一切都留給了自己。所以我們所知道的大部分事情都來(lái)自旁觀者夸大的神話。我們不知道什么是100%真實(shí)的，什么是夸大的。在武俠中，與“西方”類(lèi)似，神話有時(shí)確實(shí)對(duì)它們有利。有些完全靠夸大的神話來(lái)威懾挑戰(zhàn)者而生存。有些人故意編造他們的神話來(lái)掩蓋他們的真實(shí)技能。
最糟糕的是，就像今天的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)一樣，這些人一生都在學(xué)習(xí)和積累經(jīng)驗(yàn)，但他們把這些知識(shí)留給自己，只將這些知識(shí)傳授給他們最信任的學(xué)生。如果他們的學(xué)生沒(méi)有得到它……知識(shí)就會(huì)失傳。
即使你會(huì)閱讀中文，檔案記錄也有很多是有誤的。所以你說(shuō)它從未被使用過(guò)？好吧。但如果它曾經(jīng)很受歡迎呢？它經(jīng)常被酒館里的說(shuō)書(shū)人口口相傳。這些記錄隨著他們的離世而消失了。
但我知道一件事：成就卓越的武術(shù)家并不害怕留下他們的標(biāo)志。所以一個(gè)帶環(huán)的武器可以是一個(gè)令人敬畏的標(biāo)志。即使它可能沒(méi)有你想象的那么實(shí)用。
Agreed. I think it's not only an awesome work of art, especially in the case of showcasing metal working—super important—but also can be used to demonstrate one's strength and abilities. I'm not saying no one dueled with it and we certainly know people do and did train with it.
I just don't think anyone was fielding armies with it, especially when we have so many amazing types (and tons of historical examples) of really excellent Chinese swords from all periods.
It's got cultural uses—there are stories of training with it for other weapons, of intimidating people with it, of feats of strength using it as a test— not to mention the significance of it as a display of metal working.
But if it were a functional weapon I think we'd have seen it attested to at battles, records of it being fielded in the thousands, etc. And, most of all, there would be other swords like it in China and in other world cultures.
The beauty of a weapon is severe. It follows function at the limits of the society's metal working. I think, for that reason, most of the successful world swords are very similar.
Great conversation.
同意。我認(rèn)為它不僅是一件很棒的藝術(shù)品，尤其是在展示金屬加工方面——非常重要——而且還可以用來(lái)展示一個(gè)人的力量和能力。我并不是說(shuō)沒(méi)有人用它進(jìn)行決斗，我們當(dāng)然知道人們這樣做并且確實(shí)用它進(jìn)行了訓(xùn)練。
我只是認(rèn)為沒(méi)有人用它來(lái)裝備軍隊(duì)，特別是當(dāng)我們有這么多令人驚嘆的類(lèi)型（以及大量的歷史例子）和各個(gè)時(shí)期的真正優(yōu)秀的中國(guó)刀劍時(shí)。
它有文化用途——有用它訓(xùn)練其他武器的故事，用它恐嚇別人的故事，用它作為測(cè)試力量的故事——更不用說(shuō)它作為金屬加工展示的重要性了。
但如果它是一種功能性武器，我想我們會(huì)在戰(zhàn)斗中看到它存在的證明，它被部署在數(shù)千人手中的記錄等。而且，最重要的是，在中國(guó)和其他世界還會(huì)有其他類(lèi)似的刀文化。
武器之美是嚴(yán)肅的。它遵循社會(huì)金屬加工極限的能力。我認(rèn)為，出于這個(gè)原因，世界上大多數(shù)成功的刀劍都非常相似。
很棒的談話。
This.
Swords are not hacking weapons, particularly in the case of armoured combatants, or even a fool with a buckler, swords are are long extended razors and piercing weapons.
A good argument can be made the Rapier is the peak of swordcraft.
這么說(shuō)吧
劍不是劈砍武器，特別是對(duì)于裝甲戰(zhàn)斗人員，甚至是拿著圓盾的傻瓜，劍是長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的穿刺武器。
可以說(shuō)，細(xì)劍是劍術(shù)的頂峰。
Yeah… no, point 1 is completely ridiculous. The claim is that the rings shifting down will move the center of gravity towards the hilt. But think about it. If the rings were heavy enough to have any sort of appreciable effect, then just adding the rings would move the center of gravity up towards the tip. And the rings shifting down a bit does nothing to counteract that. If the intention was to keep the center of gravity close to the hand, then adding the rings in the first place is a terrible move.
In addition, if it were true, which it is not, then also think about the reverse. Cutting downwards will cause the rings to shift forward as their momentum carries them in the direction of the swing. If it is true that the rings hanging downwards brings the center of gravity closer to the hand making it easier to control, then it is necessarily true that with the blade extended after an attack (as in the picture) will shift the center of gravity towards the tip, making it more difficult to control at exactly the moment the swordsman is most vulnerable. That is a terrible design for a weapon, and it completely invalidates itself.
And if point 2 is correct, then it invalidates point 1. The premise of point 2 is that there’s more inertia. And for there to be more inertia, then there’s more mass. And if there’s more mass there (which is true) then that means that the center of gravity has already been shifted up. There is no way their shifting around in any direction is bringing the balance closer to the hand.
是的……不，第一點(diǎn)完全荒謬。據(jù)稱(chēng)，環(huán)向下移動(dòng)會(huì)將重心移向刀柄。但想一想。如果環(huán)足夠重，足以產(chǎn)生任何明顯的效果，那么添加環(huán)就會(huì)將重心向上移向尖端。環(huán)向下移動(dòng)一點(diǎn)并不能抵消這一點(diǎn)。如果目的是使重心靠近手，那么在頭部添加環(huán)就是一個(gè)糟糕的舉動(dòng)。
此外，如果這是真的，那么也要考慮相反的情況。向下劈砍會(huì)導(dǎo)致環(huán)向前移動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗鼈兊膭?dòng)量將它們帶到擺動(dòng)的方向。如果向下傾斜的環(huán)確實(shí)使重心更接近手，從而更容易控制，那么攻擊后刀片伸出必然會(huì)將重心轉(zhuǎn)移到尖端，使得劍客在最脆弱的時(shí)刻更難以控制。對(duì)于武器來(lái)說(shuō)，這是一個(gè)糟糕的設(shè)計(jì)，它本身就完全無(wú)效了。
如果第2點(diǎn)是正確的，那么第1點(diǎn)就無(wú)效了。因?yàn)榈?點(diǎn)的前提是有更多的慣性。慣性越大，質(zhì)量就越大。如果那里有更多的質(zhì)量（這是事實(shí)），那么這意味著重心已經(jīng)向上移動(dòng)。它們向任何方向的移動(dòng)都不可能使重心更接近手。
#5 is also as false as the myth of the “blood groove.”
#5也和“血槽”的神話一樣虛假
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
….you will never see a Dadao intended for use in actual combat with such noisy, entangling, useless frippery….
Those rings are for the “tourists” viewing “demonstrations” or students impressing each other at school rather than actual warriors…
……你永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)看到一把大刀在實(shí)戰(zhàn)中如此嘈雜、糾纏、無(wú)用…。
這些圓環(huán)是給觀看“演示”的“游客”或在學(xué)校給彼此留下深刻印象的學(xué)生用的，而不是真正的戰(zhàn)士…
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
As a Singaporean who studies both Chinese and English, I think English is too embarrassing when discussing this topic.
There is no way to distinguish between "Dadao" and "sword" in English, only broadsword and sword.
In fact, in Chinese, these are two completely different weapons. The "Dadao" is a single-edged weapon. It is like a kitchen knife at home, only larger and longer. The weight is on the head and is used for cutting. The "sword" is a double-edged weapon, light, with the center of gravity on the hilt, mainly used for piercing.
作為一個(gè)同時(shí)學(xué)習(xí)中文和英語(yǔ)的新加坡人，我認(rèn)為英語(yǔ)在討論這個(gè)話題的時(shí)候太令人尷尬了。
在英語(yǔ)里無(wú)法區(qū)分“大刀”和“劍”，只能使用broadsword和sword來(lái)區(qū)分。
實(shí)際上在中文里，這是兩種完全不同的武器。“大刀”是一種單刃武器，他就像家里的廚刀，只是更大，更長(zhǎng)，重量在頭部，用于劈砍?！皠Α笔且环N雙刃武器，輕，重心在刀柄處，主要用于穿刺。