Why Chinese Polearms Vibrate While European Ones Do Not
The vibration of Chinese polearms compared to the steadiness of European ones is due to differences in materials, techniques, and tactical uses between the two weapon traditions. Chinese polearms prioritized flexibility and used wood, while European polearms focused on rigidness with metal construction.
One noticeable difference between Chinese and European polearms is that the former often visibly vibrate and wobble, while the latter remain relatively steady, even at longer lengths exceeding 3 meters. This is primarily due to variations in materials, manufacturing techniques, and combat applications.
Chinese polearms, including spears and the famed guandao, traditionally used wooden poles, often crafted from white wax wood. The poles underwent an extensive three-year process of shaping, soaking in oil, and binding to produce hafts that were strong yet flexible. This elasticity allowed the weapons to better withstand the huge impacts of cavalry charges and extended reach, at the cost of visible vibration.
In contrast, European polearms like pikes and halberds favored rigid metal poles over wood. The emphasis was on transferring maximum force to the target, enabled by the stiffness of metal hafts. While very effective against armor and maintaining point control, the tradeoff was greater weight and material expense compared to wood.
Tactically, Chinese polearm technique relied heavily on binding and deflecting the opponent’s weapon (lan-na-zha) before striking, leveraging the flex of the haft. European polearms focused more on powerful thrusts from massed infantry formations. The different fighting styles and battlefield roles also influenced the design tradeoffs.
So in summary, the wobble often seen in Chinese polearms is a feature, not a flaw. It is the result of conscious choices to use resilient wood hafts, traditional production methods, and flowing fighting techniques quite different from the rigid metal construction and forward-oriented tactics of European polearms. Neither approach was inherently superior, but each was uniquely suited to its own martial context.