a Knight vs a Samurai?

[Jaif]

I forgot one other thing - someone used the word 'hobby' up above.  I'd like to point out that Einstein had a job in a patent office, and science was his hobby.

-Jeff

[Drifter Bob]

Fear is definately a factor, and I agree the psychological aspect is the most unpredictable part of melee combat.  But it CAN be mastered, at least for a while, it is possible to get yourself in a state where you are basically fearless.  Liquor helps a lot (and is a historically very underestimated factor), and so does psychological conditioning of various types, seemingly at the expense of sanity.  

Historically, the European Knights, the Vikings, and the Celtic and Germanic tribes before them often displayed courage which went well past the point of sanity.  I can think of just one example from thousands, of a Templar grand Master during the Crusades who first tried to talk a group of 300 knights into attacking a force of 7,000 arab cavalry, and then when they refused, charge them himself.  Or another group of templars who when their galley was boarded by Mamelukes chopped holes in the floor of the craft so that all would sink and drown.  When you read general accounts of the medieval period, such as for example Barbara Tuchmans "A Distant Mirror", you are more often struck by the insane reckless bravery of those knights than anything else (it was often a severe tactical liability).  

The examples you cite about troops in WW II are accurate, but you have to remember, most troops in WW II on either side were conscripts, and basically none had the lifetime experience of warrior indoctrination that a knight or a member of a Classical Era Barbarian tribe would. Not that they didn't feel or know fear, but they seemed to be able to put it out of their mind.  I am familiar with this state of mind, and I can say that it is a dangerous thing, your judgement gets replaced by rage, like a pitt bull which has been conditioned for fighting.  You put fear behind you along with all restraint, and that is a good feeling, it is something which feels like a drug, but it is a very dangerous temptation.   The Berserks among the Norse tribes are probably the extreme example of this.

And even those troops in WW II in some cases endured conditions which are so far beyond the endurable as we could rationally consider it.

One of the reasons I personally started getting back into WMA in a serious way was because it formed a positive outlet for otherwise destructive aggressive tendancies, "battle lust" if you will, which I had aquired from fighting in the bars and streets of the French Quarter.  That was conditioned, I was a dreamer, quite peaceful, as a kid.

As an example of another colder approach to controlling fear, I'd also point out the Romans, who conquered Southern Europe and the Med by sytematically slaughtering the fighting component of the populations of every nation they encountered, not with artillery, but in what amounted to hand to hand combat with swords, shields and javelins, and it was the conquest of fear, it's replacement by discipline in holding the line, following orders, and sticking to training, that enabled them to slaughter enemies in huge numbers much larger than any medieval battles.


JR

[Half-Baked]

P.S. A friend of mine's father was a psychiatrist; I'm certain he would have contested that your use of 'psychology' was in fact science. He told me (to paraphrase) that the scientific part of psychology generally rests in the observable reactions to drugs; the idea that we can predict the actions of individuals scientifically has yet to be shown except in the general sense (e.g. 1000 people, when confronted with situation X, 990 will respond in Y way).

He might describe it as a Soft Science, where experimental results cannot be reproduced. Makes removing all the variables difficult. For example you could not get two people sparring to be exactly the same difference apart every time. Fields of study that can be described as soft sciences usually called themselves a science because of the increased respect it gave their discipline. This is especially true in the world of academia and research grants. Basically what they are saying is we can reproduce the results 100% each time, but it is close enough to draw some useful conclusions.

The examples you cite about troops in WW II are accurate, but you have to remember, most troops in WW II on either side were conscripts

As an example of another colder approach to controlling fear, I'd also point out the Romans, who conquered Southern Europe and the Med by sytematically slaughtering the fighting component of the populations of every nation they encountered, not with artillery, but in what amounted to hand to hand combat with swords, shields and javelins, and it was the conquest of fear, it's replacement by discipline in holding the line, following orders, and sticking to training, that enabled them to slaughter enemies in huge numbers much larger than any medieval battles.

Ironic it isn't it that the Roman troops were conscripts and volunteers until about 100 BC when Marius made his reforms. They managed to defeat the Gauls, Spanish, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Greeks, not to mention the whole of Italy, with conscript and volunteer soldiers. The evidence does not quite fit your argument in this case, but it is still probably true. Roman society may have better conditioned its citizens before they were conscripted with its general attitudes. Got to love anecdotel evidence.

[Drifter Bob]

Ironic it isn't it that the Roman troops were conscripts and volunteers until about 100 BC when Marius made his reforms. They managed to defeat the Gauls, Spanish, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Greeks, not to mention the whole of Italy, with conscript and volunteer soldiers. The evidence does not quite fit your argument in this case, but it is still probably true. Roman society may have better conditioned its citizens before they were conscripted with its general attitudes. Got to love anecdotel evidence.

Well, I was actually arguing that the Romans had a different, colder  approach than either their barbarian rivals or their knightly replacements, but the whole psychology of the Legion was much closer to the old barbarian ethic than to that of a modern Army today.  They worshiped their eagles (standards) as demi-gods, and also worshiped martial deities, their entire value system was based on war.  

And lets not forget, by the time of the Marian reform, conscript or not (and conscription was not the norm until Imperial times) a Roman soldier was signed on for a term around 20 - 28 years (depending on the era); they were professional carreer warriors, inclulcated into the warrior spirit from the moment they enlisted (or were conscripted).  It was their life.  Even after discharge they were still subject to recall and often settled in veterans colonies in dangerous border areas where they were expected to act as a bulwark against barbarians.  

It is also notable, that the earlier Republican Roman army, which was made up of citizen - volunteers of some minimal standard of means, performed better than the much later army which was made up mainly of paid mercenaries.  Both the early Romans and the early Greeks, despite being civilized, retained strong elements of barbarian warrior culture in their earlier societies, certainly through most of the Republican period in Rome.

And I'm certainly not contemptuous of the courage or skill of popular militias by any means.  The finest example of that are probably the Swiss, though there are many many others.  I'm just pointing out the difference of a part time soldier to someobody for whom being a warrior was their whole life.  (Of course, there is also the irony of the stereotypial Renaissance man, most of the Fecthbuchs were written in their era...)

As for my anecdotal evidence, alas, I lack access to any broad statistical analysis of the subject, though statistics can be as misleading as anecdotes.  I honestly believe however that anyone reading a broad cross section of medieval military history will be struck by the often reckless bravery of the knights.  They also frequently displayed great opportunism, cruelty, and even what might be thought of as cowardice under some other circumstances, but given half a chance at a good fight they seemed to lunge at the opportunity like the crazed pitt bulls I referred to earlier.  IMHO, of course.  I would be interested to hear other folks perspectives on that.

"There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, in that order."
-Mark Twain

JR

[Drifter Bob]

I would also add this comment.  From a strategic perspective, it may in some cases actually be better or more efficient, in a cold calculating accountants sense, to have an army of frightened cosncripts bullied into strictly following orders by a system of NCO's and ruthless punishment, than a less organized less disciplined if probably braver mob of barbarians, acting based on personal courage and ties of brotherhood.

Sometimes this is the case, as it was with the celts in Ceasars time and in many cases, the Germans, Dacians, Iberians, Samnites and etc. when facing the Romans.   Sometimes not as with the first few Roman encounters with the Celts or much later against the Goths at Adrianople, or with the Greeks facing the Persians, or the Swiss militias against the Hapsburgs or Charles the Bold.

Certainly for an authoritarian, oligarchal society like ancient Rome, that becomes the only way they can afford to run the army.  At some point it's hard for anyone to have a huge charge of warrior spirit over the idea of fighting to make the rich richer...  Similar things happened toward the end of the medieval period; kings preferred to outfit their own Men At Arms rather than rely on the braver and arguably tougher, but much more independent and unpredictable knights.


JR

[Ingenious]

The quote about your father being a psychiatrist was amusing.
A psychiatrist is one who specializes with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders.
A psychologist is someone that is trained and educated to perform psychological research, testing, and therapy.
Therefore a psychologist is more apt to be quotable when referring to human emotions such as fear, bravery, ego, etc... rather than one who prescribes drugs for the insane people in the world.

And to press my issues with Jaif's post even further...
'I further suggest that if it had been life & death that would have colored both of our actions even more. "
If the previous battle where he DID disarm you had been a life and death situation... you'd be at his mercy.. therefore it would not have left an opening for a second bout.. and he would not have developed such an ego as to try to disarm you again(in the second bout that NOW would not have taken place) only you suckered him that time. You would be dead. End of story.
But a good thought as to the psychology of fighting... and bringing ego into the picture. In a few TROS combats of note in my experience.. ego HAD gotten the best of me and I over-estimated several opponents. Lucky for me my seneschal was not one to easily pick up on my total surprise when after a level 3 wound, my opponent keeps ticking...and putting more effort into his attacks WITH that wound than I was capable of with the majority of my total combat pool. If my character had reacted as I did.. he'd be dead.

-Ingenious

[Half-Baked]

It is also notable, that the earlier Republican Roman army, which was made up of citizen - volunteers of some minimal standard of means, performed better than the much later army which was made up mainly of paid mercenaries. Both the early Romans and the early Greeks, despite being civilized, retained strong elements of barbarian warrior culture in their earlier societies, certainly through most of the Republican period in Rome.

Drifter Bob:
If your interested in the topic that covers why Greece and Rome, and Western societies that inherited its military traditions, have been successful have a read of Why the West Has Won: Carnage and Culture from Salamis to Vietnam, by Victor Davis Hanson, a noted a military historian. It is worth a read if you interested at some of the factors that gave the Romans, Greeks and other western armies the military edge. Mostly it is to do with the higher morale and their stake in the result of the battle. A very interesting read. Victor Davis Hanson has made also made an important contribution to the study of Greek warfare between states and how the agriculture of the olive and vine contributed to how seiges and Greek warfare played out.

[contracycle]

We cannot just project the scientific method backwards in time just becuase the topic was "important".  Childbirth is also important, also life threatening.  As soon as Jaif says that emotions mean that "science tends to take the back seat" he concedes the difficulty in developing a serious science of martial arts at all.

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method.  He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

The "dialogues" method, while formal, is not truly scientific.  Lots of  documents exist in this form, from Persia to China.  They suffer from the fact that it is not really a conversation, but a convgersation staged to produce the outcome the author has in their head.

As I alluded above, if "importance" was sufficient to produce the scientific method, we then have to project science back to every single human activity of any significance, particularly, say, the creation of Achulean hand-axes.  All of which renders the scientific method pretty much useless, and seems at odds with the massive improvement in control over the world we gained when we did develop the method.

This, similarly, is what bugs me about claims that there is a "lost" western martial art.  I mean, why do we even think this?  A handful of instruction books does not make a martial arts tradition.  Its quite possible to say that knights have developed great personal skills without also claiming that they had an explicit and known martial art which taught them these skills.  Its also quite possible to say that the best way to re-discover these skills is to develop a martial art of the same subject with the same tools.  And we can do both of those without projecting backwards a martial arts tradition and a scientific method for which no evidence exists.

[Drifter Bob]

We cannot just project the scientific method backwards in time just becuase the topic was "important

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method.  He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

Ok fine, how about Gallileo, (born 1564) Copernicus (1473) Tycho Brahe (1546) Johanes Kepler  (1571) Leonardo DaVinci (1452) Roger Bacon (1214) etc. etc. etc.  These were all, to a greater or lesser degree, men of science, considered part of the western scientific tradition.  These men were contemporaries of the men who wrote the Fechtbuchs, almost all of which are on hand date from the 15th century or later.   Do you assume that the swordsmen were inherently less scientific than their contemporaries who dabbled with alchemy or stargazing?

This, similarly, is what bugs me about claims that there is a "lost" western martial art.  I mean, why do we even think this?  A handful of instruction books does not make a martial arts tradition.  Its quite possible to say that knights have developed great personal skills without also claiming that they had an explicit and known martial art which taught them these skills.  Its also quite possible to say that the best way to re-discover these skills is to develop a martial art of the same subject with the same tools.  And we can do both of those without projecting backwards a martial arts tradition and a scientific method for which no evidence exists.

Maybe you should look over some of the fechtbuchs before so readily dismissing them, or at least a good overview of them like Sydney Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.  If you had, you would know for example that there is considerable evidence of consistency across the board, in spite of all the differences.  For example, some very technical axe fighting techniques described in a French book published in the 16th century are almost identical to a whole spate of specific techniques published in Germany generations before.  There are many links between traditions where there is no evidence that there was any direct knowlege of the other.

In addition to the books, there are also volumes of letters, chronicles, and official records which bear out this information, which is also informed by modern archeology and reproduction.

Ultimately, as I pointed out before, the fact that the limited work which has already been done in interpolating the Fechtbuchs has already led to such superior fighting techniques on the part of it's practitioners, is proof positive to me that there is a Western Martial arts tradition.   It's obvious to anyone who has had any real experience fighting with weapons who observes the techniques in action, they are revolutionary, there is nothing like them in "traditional" eastern martial arts.

Additionally, there are scores upon scores of documented western martial arts, many if not most of which are the direct descendants of the old fencing traditions, all over Europe, most of which largely died out in the 19th century.  Even today though, almost every single European country still has a remnant of old stick fighting, club fighting, and unarmed combat traditions, like Bata in Ireland or Savate-Danse du Rue in France.

Such traditions exist in fact all over the world.

The idea that there is no western martial arts tradition is hinged upon the patently unscientific notion that people of the west are uniquely bereft of this aspect of culture compared to every other group of people on the planet.

JR

[Half-Baked]

Gregor Mendel, although not himself a scientist in certain lights, is often described as the father of the scientific method. He was born in 1822; this should give an idea of how absurd it is to project "scientific" claims back to the C.15th and C.16th.

And here was I thinking that Aristotle was the father of the scientific method. Observe a phenomenon and deduce a conclusion regarding that phenomenon. Maybe that is not the modern definition, but it forms the basis that would become the scientific method. If Gregor Mendel is the founder of the scientific method it would mean that Isaac Newton (Born: 4 Jan 1643), Copernicus (Born: 19 Feb 1473), Galileo (Born: 15 Feb 1564) etc were not scientists. Draw on your own conclusions on absurdity.

[Ingenious]

Just because someone was alive before a term was coined as to describe what something is does not mean that they themselves were not capable of being called this term. Is prehistoric man not human? Even though language and the term human was not used back then?

As to Mendel being 'often' called the father of the scientific method.. I am 'often' called God. It does not necessarily mean that this is true. When saying such things, offer source material that you read/heard/saw it from... so that one might not assume that you are full of ****....

Sorry for this post/rant.. it is 5am here after-all..
-Ingenious

[Jaif]

Lot's of responses, and I'm tired, so I'll saw off the shotgun and go scattershot... :-)

1) It wasn't my father, it was my friend's father.
2) What is 'bravery'? Is it brave to lead a suicide charge for no good reason? Or is it foolhardy or reckless?  If personx reacts to fear by running away, and persony reacts to fear by running towards, aren't they both reacting to fear?
3) An interesting thing I found from that WWII study was that everybody in combat was either scared or insane, and that the longer you exposed individuals to combat, the more likely they were to go insane (e.g. battle fatigue).  Note I'm using insane loosely here.
4) I think we're getting hung-up on the definition of 'scientific method'.  That's simply one way of making advances.  Just because you don't use the scientific method doesn't mean you're not being thoughtful.
5) That said, I doubt that martial arts trainers used the scientific method; did they publish there experiments in peer-reviewed journels and await independant verification by others?  How well controlled were there tests?  Again, a rational, thoughtful approach is not necessarily "the scientific method".

In the end, I easily accept that fighting techniques were developed thoughtfully, with much observation and testing of ideas.  I've always thought it foolish to believe otherwise, and the small amount I've studied about military history has always born this out.  My only contention is that the thoughtful side of fighting is just that: a side of fighting, and without taking the human part into the equation you can't really describe the whole thing.

One last thing: knights and samurais may be neat, but I wonder what would have happened if a well-lead medeival English army with longbowmen had met the Mongols.  That would be cool. :-)

-Jeff

P.S. It happens all the times in Age of Kings (computer game), but somehow I doubt that's a realistic simulation. :-)

[Crusader]

Why, contracycle, do you seem so offended by the notion that the West could have had a martial tradition?  By your logic, then the East doesn't have one either.  What, in your eyes, constitutes a cultural tradition of the scientifically-approached study of combat?  Are you arguing that, simply because the scientific method, as we modern folks understand it, did not exist in the middle ages, there can therefore have been no scientific pursuit of expertise in arms until recently?  

In any case, the phrase "martial art" has a long history in the West, the "Arts of Mars" being referred to by one or more Roman writers.  That the study of arms merited such a description in Antiquity demonstrates that it was indeed perceived as an art, on par with other pursuits commonly so described.

[contracycle]

Why, contracycle, do you seem so offended by the notion that the West could have had a martial tradition?

Why would you think such a thing would *offend* me?  Beware spurious attribution of motive.

By your logic, then the East doesn't have one either. What, in your eyes, constitutes a cultural tradition of the scientifically-approached study of combat? Are you arguing that, simply because the scientific method, as we modern folks understand it, did not exist in the middle ages, there can therefore have been no scientific pursuit of expertise in arms until recently?

What I was pointing out was that to project science per se back like that undermines the argument; and we tend to do so just ebcause we are so familiar with science.  To an extent, yes I am arguing that whatever was done was Not Scientific, but this should not be taken to mean that I think it was stupid or incomplete or that nobody could learn anything.

But the difference is this: without a methdology and a system of continuing education, you can have isolated geniuses, and their mechanical bird or whatever gets displayed and no general lessons are learned.  The presence of a few books does not imply a whole such system.

[Muggins]

Ah, but publication never takes place in a vacuum. Consider: all the late period (16th C and 17th C) books were actually commercial enterprises. A fechtbuch like Meyer's 1570 manuscript was so popular it was reprinted 4 times, up until the 1640s. This manuscript obviously had a market, and clearly refers to several other books tha he expected his read to have familiarity with. This does not sound much like "isolated genius".

As another example, consider the oral tradition by which the verses of Lichtenhauer were transmitted over time. In a manner similar to the teachings of Japanese masters, these verses survived for nearly 100 years before they were written down. On another tack, there are modern fencing masters able to trace the lineage of their classical fencing technique through to the 17th century.

The western martial tradition is as viable as the eastern. Actually, considering the fact that much of what we consider eastern martial art today was created/modified for the purpose of inclusion in schools in the 1890s, there are plenty of Japanese historians who would argue that, in the period prior to the encoding of kendo, judo and karate for the school syllabus (and the invention of katas as such like), only a tiny fraction of the country knew of or understood the martial arts culture. Most of the old arts were restricted to the nobility (and then to only some members), and lacked the exposure that the common fraternities of Europe such as the Marxbruders gave to their art.

James