 |
| Photograph taken from a historical 17th century training manual |
Miaodao: The History of China's Long Two-Handed Sabre
The Miaodao (苗刀) is one of the most distinctive weapons preserved in modern Chinese martial arts.
With its long, relatively narrow blade and extended handle, it can be wielded with both hands and superficially invites comparison with Japanese swords.
That resemblance has also produced considerable mythology.
Some accounts attempt to trace the Miaodao directly back through the Tang dynasty, sometimes identifying it with weapons such as the Modao (陌刀) and then presenting an uninterrupted Chinese lineage extending into modern martial arts.
The actual history is more complicated.
The weapon we now call Miaodao belongs to a much broader Chinese history of long blades, but the clearest documentary ancestors of its surviving martial tradition appear much later—particularly during the Ming dynasty, when Chinese soldiers and martial artists encountered Japanese weapons and swordsmanship.
That encounter produced something historically much more interesting than a simple question of whether the weapon was “Chinese” or “Japanese.”
It produced adaptation.
China Had Long Blades Long Before the Miaodao
Long single-edged and double-edged weapons existed in China centuries before anything called Miaodao appeared.
Chinese military weapons changed considerably between the Han, Tang, Song, Ming and later periods. The Tang dynasty in particular employed several forms of large bladed weapons, including the famous Modao (陌刀) associated with infantry warfare.
General Li Siye (李嗣業) became particularly associated in historical accounts with troops using the Modao.
But this is where we need to be careful.
The existence of an ancient Chinese two-handed or long-bladed weapon does not demonstrate an unbroken technical lineage to modern Miaodao.
Similar weapon dimensions do not establish continuous martial transmission.
The Modao is therefore important to the broader history of Chinese long blades, but we should not simply rename it an ancient Miaodao.
The Ming Dynasty Changes the Story
The history becomes much clearer during the Ming dynasty.
China's southeastern coastal regions suffered repeated attacks associated with the wokou (倭寇), conventionally translated as Japanese pirates.
The term can be misleading if interpreted too literally. Wokou groups varied over time and could include Japanese, Chinese and other participants.
What mattered militarily was that Ming forces encountered fighters using weapons and methods that Chinese military writers took seriously.
One of the most important figures in this history was the Ming general Qi Jiguang (戚繼光, 1528–1588).
Qi did not respond to enemy methods by pretending that everything foreign was inferior.
He studied what worked. That included Japanese swordsmanship.
Qi Jiguang and Japanese Sword Methods
Qi Jiguang's military writings contain material concerning the changdao (長刀)—the long sabre—and methods associated with Japanese swordsmanship.
The historical importance of this material is difficult to exaggerate.
Instead of supporting a simple nationalist story in which an ancient Chinese weapon disappeared and was later rediscovered, the Ming evidence shows cross-cultural military exchange.
Chinese soldiers encountered effective Japanese sword methods.
Chinese military specialists examined them.
Elements were adopted and adapted for Chinese military use.
The body of material commonly associated with the Xinyou Daofa (辛酉刀法) belongs to this environment.
But we should also correct another statement from my original article.
I described Qi's material as probably China's first manual on two-handed long-blade fighting.
That is unnecessarily absolute.
It is safer and more accurate to describe the surviving Ming material as some of the most important early documentary evidence for the two-handed long-sabre tradition associated with the later development of Miaodao practice.
Cheng Zongyou Provides Remarkable Evidence
An even more revealing source appeared in the early seventeenth century.
The martial artist and writer Cheng Zongyou (程宗猷) included a section called Dandao Faxuan (單刀法選) in his martial writings.
Here “single sabre” does not mean that the weapon was necessarily used with one hand.
Cheng explicitly explains:
“The weapon is called single sabre; one sabre is used with both hands.”
More importantly, Cheng openly discusses where the method came from.
He says that the skill excelled among the Japanese and describes their blades as well forged, light and effective. He then explains that he sought out the method and learned from a Zhejiang teacher named Liu Yunfeng (劉雲峰), whom he describes as having received authentic Japanese transmission.
This is extremely valuable evidence.
There is no need to speculate about whether Ming martial artists were influenced by Japanese swordsmanship.
A Ming martial author tells us directly that they were.
Adoption Does Not Mean Simple Copying
That does not make later Chinese long-sabre traditions “Japanese martial arts.”
Martial techniques do not remain culturally frozen simply because some of their material originated elsewhere.
Methods are adopted, modified, combined with existing practices and transmitted within new environments.
This has happened throughout martial history.
What began as Ming interest in Japanese long-sword methods subsequently existed within Chinese military and martial culture.
Over generations, Chinese practitioners developed their own transmission traditions.
This is a much more historically interesting process than trying to prove that one country invented everything first.
From Ming Long Sabre to Modern Miaodao
Another important distinction is that Qi Jiguang did not call his weapon Miaodao.
The name belongs to a considerably later period.
The surviving tradition connecting Ming long-sabre methods with modern Miaodao passed through several generations and eventually became particularly associated with martial artists in northern China.
Among the important modern figures was Liu Yuchun (劉玉春).
His student Guo Changsheng (郭長生) became particularly influential in the development and dissemination of Miaodao during the Republican period.
The name Miaodao itself appears to have become established during the early Republican period rather than being an ancient designation. A specialist Miaodao history places the formal naming around 1921, in connection with the martial-arts unit established under Cao Kun, although the precise history of the term deserves continued investigation.
This means we should distinguish between:
the history of long two-handed sabres in China
and
the history of the weapon specifically called Miaodao.
They are related subjects, but they are not identical.
What Does “Miaodao” Mean?
The character miao (苗) can refer to a young sprout or seedling.
The usual explanation connects the name with the weapon's long, narrow blade, resembling the slender leaf or shoot of a plant.
There is also a popular explanation connecting the weapon with the Miao ethnic group.
I would treat that second explanation cautiously.
The weapon's documented modern development is associated primarily with northern Chinese martial circles rather than demonstrating a clear historical origin among the Miao people.
Without stronger evidence, the ethnic explanation should remain a theory rather than established history.
Guo Changsheng and Republican-Era Miaodao
The Republican period was extremely important for the transformation of Chinese martial arts.
Martial traditions that had previously been transmitted through local teachers, military networks and private groups were increasingly reorganized into larger institutions.
Guo Changsheng became one of the important figures in this process.
He was associated with Tongbei/Pigua martial traditions and became known for his skill with the long two-handed sabre.
During the institutional martial-arts movement of the Republican era, Miaodao became part of efforts to systematize and teach Chinese martial arts on a broader scale.
This period also produced an important development within the surviving curriculum.
First and Second Road Miaodao
The tradition generally distinguishes between First Road (一路苗刀) and Second Road (二路苗刀).
First Road represents the older body of transmitted material associated with Liu Yuchun and his predecessors.
Guo Changsheng subsequently participated in developing additional material that became known as Second Road Miaodao (二路苗刀), incorporating characteristics of the martial systems with which he was familiar.
Sources within the Miaodao tradition particularly associate this development with the influence of Tongbei/Pigua methods and more mobile footwork.
This is itself an excellent example of how martial traditions actually develop.
A system can preserve older material while simultaneously acquiring new material.
The existence of later innovation does not make the tradition “fake.”
It makes it a living martial tradition.
Cheng Zongyou Was Not the Source of First Road
Here I need to correct another statement from my original article.
I previously wrote that the Miaodao form transmitted to Guo Changsheng by Liu Yuchun was simply the classical Ming form handed down from Cheng Zongyou.
That is too strong.
Cheng's Dandao Faxuan is enormously important for understanding Ming two-handed sabre practice, but similarity between surviving Miaodao and Ming material does not establish an uninterrupted teacher-to-student transmission directly from Cheng.
The surviving northern Miaodao lineage has its own transmission history.
The Ming manuals provide important comparative historical evidence.
Those two things should not automatically be collapsed into a single genealogy.
Again:
Technical similarity can support historical investigation. It cannot by itself prove lineage.
Miaodao Comes to Taiwan
The history of Miaodao is particularly relevant to Taiwan because one of the important Republican-era martial artists who transmitted the weapon was Han Qingtang (韓慶堂).
Han was part of the generation of mainland Chinese martial artists whose traditions reached Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War.
Through these teachers and their students, several Republican-era martial systems were preserved in Taiwan.
Miaodao was among them.
This gives the weapon an interesting historical trajectory:
Ming military encounters and martial exchange contributed to the development of Chinese long-sabre practice.
Those methods continued to evolve within China.
Northern martial artists preserved and modified them.
Republican-era institutions helped systematize their teaching.
And representatives of those traditions eventually carried Miaodao to Taiwan.
The history is considerably more complicated than a straight line from an ancient Chinese sword.
But that complexity is precisely what makes it fascinating.
Chinese or Japanese?
Discussions of Miaodao sometimes become trapped in a question that may not be particularly useful:
Is it Chinese or Japanese?
Modern Miaodao is unquestionably a Chinese martial tradition.
Its modern transmission, terminology and development belong to Chinese martial culture.
At the same time, Ming sources provide unusually strong evidence that Japanese weapons and swordsmanship influenced Chinese long-sabre practice.
Both statements can be true.
Recognizing foreign influence does not diminish Chinese martial culture.
Quite the opposite.
Qi Jiguang and other Ming military thinkers were interested in solving practical problems. If an enemy possessed an effective method, studying that method was sensible.
Cheng Zongyou was even more explicit.
He saw effective Japanese swordsmanship, sought someone who understood it, learned it and documented what he had learned.
There is something refreshingly practical about that attitude.
A Weapon Shaped by History
The Miaodao should therefore not be presented as an unchanged ancient Chinese weapon surviving continuously from the Han or Tang dynasty.
Nor should it simply be described as a Japanese sword transplanted into China.
Its history is richer than either story.
China possessed a long history of large bladed weapons.
Ming soldiers encountered Japanese swordsmanship.
Chinese military specialists studied and adapted those methods.
Later generations continued developing long-sabre traditions within Chinese martial culture.
Republican-era teachers such as Liu Yuchun and Guo Changsheng played important roles in shaping the surviving Miaodao tradition.
And practitioners including Han Qingtang helped carry that tradition to Taiwan.
The Miaodao is therefore not interesting because it represents a perfectly isolated national tradition.
It is interesting because it demonstrates something that martial-arts history repeatedly shows us:
Martial arts develop through transmission, encounter, adaptation and change.
Sometimes the most interesting history begins when different traditions meet.
Sources and Further Reading
Qi Jiguang (戚繼光). Jixiao Xinshu (紀效新書 / New Treatise on Military Efficiency). Ming dynasty. Primary military source for Qi's weapons, tactics and training methods.
Cheng Zongyou (程宗猷). Dandao Faxuan (單刀法選 / Selected Methods of the Single Sabre), contained in Gengyu Shengji (耕餘剩技), early seventeenth century. Primary source explicitly describing a two-handed single sabre and Japanese-derived sword methods.
Read the digitized Chinese text
Ma Mingda (馬明達). Research on Chinese military and martial-arts history, particularly Ming martial exchange, long-sabre traditions and Republican-era martial arts. His work is useful for placing Miaodao within the broader history of Chinese weapons rather than relying solely on modern lineage accounts.
International Miaodao Federation (Hong Kong). “History of Miaodao (苗刀歷史).” Specialist lineage/history source covering the modern name, Liu Yuchun, Guo Changsheng and Republican-era transmission. Treat modern lineage details as specialist tradition where independent documentation is unavailable.
chinese sources