The Forge Archives

Disclaimer #1:
This question has less to do with RPGs than martial arts, but this is (sadly?) the best place I have to ask this.

Disclaimer #2: long anecdote for short question.  Sorry.

The other day I was speaking with a gamer friend of mine, and I was telling him about TROS.  He seemed kinda interested.  Anyways, in the course of telling him about the combat system, I mentioned Jake trying to put his experiences into making the system.


...and that's where things got wonky.

He made a lot of claims about martial arts, particular Western martial arts versus ones from the Orient.  Some of them were blatantly silly ("Western martial arts don't think about anything except range").  Others were less so.

One that I wanted to bring up was "Eastern martial arts survived because they often got linked to religion, and Western martial arts died off when firearms showed up."

So, does his comment hold ANY water?  Without any actual information, I can make several good guesses about what is necessary for a tradition of martial arts to exist in a society, but I was curious if anyone here had anything better than 'good guesses.'

And if anyone could recommend something like a comparative history of martial arts, you would have my undying gratitude.

See Sydney Anglo's book "The Martial Arts of Rennaissance Europe" at your local library or wherever. It's an indespensible book on this end.

I think, concerning "why western martial arts died," your friend isn't too far off. WMA is concerned with effectiveness and efficiency. With the introduction of the gun into everyday society the need for sword play and what not died out. Forms of WMA still exist in modern sports--boxing, wrestling, football (american), rugby, fencing, etc. The fact is that very few asian martial arts (percentage wise) are really for fighting as well. Many of them are religious/thearputical (tai-chi), sporting (kendo, tai-kwan-do, ju-jitsu), or showy (many forms of kung-fu). That's not saying that they don't have martial applicaiton, but they mutated and therefore survived...just like boxing and fencing. There is significantly less ritual attached to WMA than EMA, and almost no actual religious significance.

One could argue that the gun is the modern form of WMA...which now rules the world of fighting and warfare (for better or worse).

As for a comparative history, there are lots of books, Dr. Anglo's being amongst the best.

Jake

Thanks!

Quote from: Jake NorwoodSee Sydney Anglo's book "The Martial Arts of Rennaissance Europe" at your local library or wherever. It's an indespensible book on this end.

I think, concerning "why western martial arts died," your friend isn't too far off. WMA is concerned with effectiveness and efficiency.
...
One could argue that the gun is the modern form of WMA...which now rules the world of fighting and warfare (for better or worse).

I couldn't agree more with your whole post Jake.  the ultimate statement about modern martial arts,  is when Indiana Jones  draws his pistol and shoots the swordsman.  How many swordsman is a guy with a baretta worth?  This isn't to say that non gun self defence techniques are worthless, because they aren't ...  the are just worth less than when guns weren't in the equation.  As for western and eastern...   the only real diffrence are the religious aspects Possibly. Not having trained in them I can't really speak to thier extent.  But as far as the non war cultural influences maintaining such arts as the manufacturing of High Quality Sword manufature and training...   that's obviously been the case.

You get a replay of this in microcosm on the western frontier of America.

In the early days of the frontier knife fighting was the traditional way to settle disputes.  This gave rise to a whole bunch of specialized knives including the famous Bowie knife and Arkansas Toothpick.

Given that knife fighting is part wrestling, part brawling with a deadly weapon, the advantage went to the big, strong and fast (the stereo typical "mountain man")

When the revolver began to spread around the west it was known as the equalizer (so much so, Colt later named one of their production models the Colt Equalizer) precisely for the same reason as the Indy example above.

When you tie something into "religion" it tends to last along time.  When you tie something into how to kill an enemy quickly with minimal risk to self, it tends to get replaced as soon as something more effective comes along.

QuoteOne that I wanted to bring up was "Eastern martial arts survived because they often got linked to religion, and Western martial arts died off when firearms showed up."

Actually, I just got out of a seminar with a top Kali(filipino knife/sword fighting) expert, and his theory is that martial arts tend to die off with disarmament.  His example was that China and Japan would place strictures on who could carry weapons, whereas in Indonesia and the Phillipines, machetes and bolos were regular work tools in the jungle, so noone was ever disarmed, and the skills could still be applied and not watered down.

On the note of knife fighting, wrestling does play a part, but nothing like what passes for current grappling.  A bladed weapons don't rely on strength, but where you hit someone.  A two inch blade can cut your jugular, carotid, go in your armpit, slit your genitals, pierce your lungs, slash your wrists, cut your eyes, and otherwise make things bad for you.  The big man might be able to wrestle you down, if you don't cut him up while he's doing it.

I think the best way I've heard it put "In Indonesia, all knife fighters are good, because there is only two ranks; good and dead."  You don't walk away from a lost knife fight.

Chris

What I've heard jibes with what Chris says. In fact, in China the communist regime has apparently been the cause of the change in style of Kung Fu from a relatively deadly art to more of a ritualized dance form. In order to restrict the deadliness of the practitioners. The only question is to what extent the arts were successfully preserved in Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

And remember that along with disarmament came the guns, as well. Later to the East, but they had an effect as well. Keep in mind that unarmed arts came about as a result of Confucius' ban on weapons. Confuscius = Kung Fu dzu, hence the origination of the term, IIRC.

See GURPS Martial Arts. Crappy system for MA, but great details in the text.

Mike

All this is very true.  Remember several "Eastern Martial Arts weapons" are really items a peasant would have access too. That weren't restricted.  IIRC nunchucks were a toll used to flail grain?  In a society where more effective weapons are hard to get, use of knives and other hand to hand weapons will be maintained.  As for Kung Fu  I have no idea as to it's effectiveness in it's current dance form...  Wasn't Capioeta (SP?) maintained/developed as a Dance  to allow training under the suspicious eyes of the Colonial powers?   I have no idea as to it's relative effectiveness to oher forms of unarmed combat though.

Quote from: Bankuei
Actually, I just got out of a seminar with a top Kali(filipino knife/sword fighting) expert, and his theory is that martial arts tend to die off with disarmament.  His example was that China and Japan would place strictures on who could carry weapons, whereas in Indonesia and the Phillipines, machetes and bolos were regular work tools in the jungle, so noone was ever disarmed, and the skills could still be applied and not watered down.

I disagree. Karate exists BECAUSE OF weapons bans. Okinawan citizens were left poorly defended against bandit raids when China (and later Japan) took away all of their weapons and they had to learn to defend themselves with bare hands and work implements. Many also wanted to fight against the occupation by foreigners and studied the martial arts for that reason, they just had to do it in secret.

The Chinese martial arts (known collectively as "Kung Fu" to westerners, despite the great variation in different styles) have been prohibited to be practiced for hundreds of years and thrived in secrecy. Almost every revolution in China has had martial artists in lead positions. Martial Arts practictitioners in China have been hunted for a long time by those in power, and they stick to their traditions and practices despite the danger (I'm not sure about the stance taken by the current communist government on the martial arts, and the ban on martial arts practice has not been around forever. When the Shoulin monistary was in it's heigh of martial arts influence there was no such restriction, but it was destroyed by a lord instituting such a restriction.)

Quote from: Bankuei

I think the best way I've heard it put "In Indonesia, all knife fighters are good, because there is only two ranks; good and dead."  You don't walk away from a lost knife fight.

In most knife fights there is no real winner, both people die. It just usually takes one person longer. Parrying a knife with a knife is next to impossible (the blades are too short), meaning the only practical defense is dodging or disabling your opponent before you get too hurt, unfortunately bringing your own weapon into range also brings the other guy's which makes simultaneous hits quite common. Also a knife hit is usually not immediately fatal, especially if your busy trying to avoid his knife and he's trying to avoid yours meaning it takes several hits to be decisive.

Something that has always stuck out to me is the difference between grappling/battlefield MA and "civillian" MA.  Karate, boxing, and other striking arts are generally "civillian" in history, whereas grappling, wrestling, and joint-breaking are the martial arts of the warrior-class (knights, samurai, etc.). An interesting note on what's effective where and for whom.

Jake

QuoteKarate exists BECAUSE OF weapons bans. Okinawan citizens were left poorly defended against bandit raids when China (and later Japan) took away all of their weapons and they had to learn to defend themselves with bare hands and work implements. Many also wanted to fight against the occupation by foreigners and studied the martial arts for that reason, they just had to do it in secret.

There is no disagreement here, what is being said is that Karate and other forms of unarmed combat, are not as lethal as armed combat.  When a society is disarmed, or unfamilarized with a set of weapons, they become less able to use those weapons, less effective in using them.

QuoteThe Chinese martial arts (known collectively as "Kung Fu" to westerners, despite the great variation in different styles) have been prohibited to be practiced for hundreds of years and thrived in secrecy.

Again, this is the cause of disarming and prohibiting the citizens and defamiliarizing them with weapons, leading to a decay in ability.  Trust me, I'm Chinese, I'd be the last one to dis on my people.  It only makes sense that if you can't carry a sword, you won't practice with one(as much, anyway).  And it is easier to kill someone with a sword than your bare hands.

QuoteIn most knife fights there is no real winner, both people die. It just usually takes one person longer. Parrying a knife with a knife is next to impossible (the blades are too short), meaning the only practical defense is dodging or disabling your opponent before you get too hurt, unfortunately bringing your own weapon into range also brings the other guy's which makes simultaneous hits quite common. Also a knife hit is usually not immediately fatal, especially if your busy trying to avoid his knife and he's trying to avoid yours meaning it takes several hits to be decisive.

Yes, two unskilled people will roll around on the ground, cutting each other in non-fatal places, and perhaps, one will stab the other in the right spot, and maybe not bleed to death while doing so.  

You don't parry a knife, you cut the arm that holds the knife, and get it the hell outta the way and keep cutting.  You don't have time to dodge, you get in, jam up the weapon arm,  either break it or cut them til they drop it, and go for the throat, eyes, groin, or armpit.  Yes, you will get cut, but if you did your work right, your forearm is cut, and they have a broken elbow, knee, and you've stabbed at least two of the targets listed above.

Of course, the best way to get the real deal, like Jake would say, is study it for yourself.  Move around with some folks who know what they're doing, and you'd learn a lot about what works and what doesn't.  When it comes down to martial arts, theory is nothing, at the end of a fight, you either stand or you don't.  Something either works or it doesn't.  Martial arts at its heart is about doing what you have to to live.

Back on the note of the initial thread question, martial arts(like any other trade or skill) survive when they get used.  If people don't use certain weapons, or have need to fight, then they lose those skills.  Most of us lack skills that children in 3rd world countries know by instinct, like finding water, what bugs are safe to eat, and that wind means a hurricane is coming.  Necessity is the mother of invention, and the murderer of the frivolous.

Chris

This thread has been very informative to me, especially about how cultural supports maintain martial arts or not.  Thanks again.

*goes back to watching thread & eating popcorn*

Quote from: BankueiActually, I just got out of a seminar with a top Kali(filipino knife/sword fighting) expert, and his theory is that martial arts tend to die off with disarmament.

I don't entirely agree with that... because if you take a look at the RyuKyu Empire, and what happened to the martial arts there after Japan took it over (it came to be called Okinawa), the Okinawans started learning to use farm implements as weapons. We still train with these weapons today, though the knowledge for many of them has been lost, and our current training is really more for preserving the art than anything else. Our focus is still on karate (originally referred to by the RyuKyuans as "Te").

Quote
I think the best way I've heard it put "In Indonesia, all knife fighters are good, because there is only two ranks; good and dead."  You don't walk away from a lost knife fight.

The only area where I differ there is that it's not limited to Indonesia. :)

Quote from: Thirsty VikingIIRC nunchucks were a toll used to flail grain?

That's a common misconception. The reality is that nunchiaku (as they are correctly called) were bridles. Okinawans didn't believe in using bits, so instead they had a harness that consisted of two double-curved pieces of wood that would go around the horse's head.  The outside was one smooth curve, the inside had 2 curves; one was to fit around the head. You would attach ropes to the side of the bridle, and just pull the horse's head in the direction you wanted him/her to go, since horses will walk where they are looking.

Take them off, remove the rope from one end, and you have a rather nasty weapon. They take some getting used to, especially if you learn with the more commonplace octagonal version. :)

QuoteWe still train with these weapons today, though the knowledge for many of them has been lost, and our current training is really more for preserving the art than anything else. Our focus is still on karate (originally referred to by the RyuKyuans as "Te").

I'm not disagreeing with you here.  What, again, I am saying, is that your current training with weapons is more for preservation of the art, as opposed to actual use.  Hence there will be differences in ability(jutsu vs. do applications). That being the reason that much of the knowledge has been lost.  While farm implements and anything heavy, hard or sharp can make a weapon, obviously swords and other weapons designed solely for combat make better weapons than things not designed for that.

QuoteThe only area where I differ there is that it's not limited to Indonesia. :)

And you are also correct in that as well.  I'm sure there are great knife fighters in many other places where violence is all too common.  The point is where knife fights occur, only the good will survive.

Chris