a Knight vs a Samurai?

[Muggins]

On the issue of fear as a big factor in fighting:

Fear alters a lot of things during a life or death situation. Reading Amberger's Secret History of the Sword, you can see how it affects people. However, the basic idea behind drilling a technique or procedure endlessly is to produce the requisite muscle memory to perform the technique under stress. Same idea behind drilling soldiers under fire- do it until it becomes second nature.

When it comes to the scientific nature of any martial art, the thinking and reasoning happens away from life-and-death situations. It involves considering how the body moves, and the possible permutations in a situation. Pose the problem, find a possible solution, test the solution under different conditions. If it works, then you drill it against the time when it may be vital to saving your life. When considering the complex geometry postulated by the 16th and 17th C masters, it is about making sure your form and responses are perfect before a fight, not about visualising a fight in terms of line and angles while actually involved.

James

[Salamander]

Wow guys, just wow.

[tauman]

There is more than a "presence of a few books" to support the existance of a martial tradition of Europe.

The books by the Italian masters, for example are not just single works without any references to any other martial works--the later masters refer to the earlier ones, and not just by name, but also by specific techniques and views. Furthermore, in the Bolognese school, we know that Manciolino and Marazzo had the same master. Small wonder then that the techniques they teach in their manuals are so similar (yet not identical). In fact, you can trace the development and evolution of Italian swordsmanship and unarmed techniques by reading the manuals in chronological order.

The presence of the English Masters of Defence clearly shows that the teaching of martial arts was organized and well-known in Elizabethan England. Pupils would take over for masters in the same way that happens with eastern martial arts schools today.

In the German system (as Jake can tell you much better than can I), the work of Liechtenauer spawned a whole system with later masters referring to him several generations later. The techniques are clearly similar, with the same names and general philosophy. While I guess it is possible that succeeding generations kept "reinventing the wheel" it just doesn't seem very likely.

Read the books for yourself--many of them were systematic and highly refined and show an understanding of swordsmanship beyond just being quick and strong, with martial theory equal to anything seen in the east.

Now as to how scientific it was. Well, is swordsmanship an art or a science? I don't really know how to argue that one way or the other (I'd say it's an art founded upon the principles of science). However, if you read some of the better Italian rapier manuals, you'll see that the reasoning behind the techniques is clearly explained, with a full understanding of the relevant principles of geometry, physics, and human physiology. As a result, I can give you real reasons for why you should and should not do something, beyond just "it works for me." And these reasons would not be "mine," but would instead be exactly as explained in the manuals.

Steve Reich

But the difference is this: without a methodology 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.

[Jake Norwood]

The real issue here, as far as I can see, is "what is science?"

I say that swordsmanship is a science, because it was called that three hundred years before the aformentioned crystalization of the scientific method. Some would say "there's no science in war," but thousands of Military Science proffessors would do more than beg to disagree.

It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

As with most arguments, this appears to be about semantics.

Jake,
who's degree is in linguistics, a science.

[Vanguard]

Wow

This discussion has gone all over the place and, at some points, a little out of control.

When you consider the very title of this thread - Samurai Vs Knight.

Might as well have proposed Spartan Vs Praetorian, Kung-fu Vs Karate, Berserker Vs Jedi-Ninja. Surely it's all just done for a laugh, taken seriously perhaps, but a laugh nonetheless.

You can criticise the author for not having addressed any of the issues raised, agree with him on opinions he presented, or indeed argue that he presented a flawed argument. Hell, I haven't even read the article, and I dont think I need to. But this seems to have gone completely off-topic. And now comes across more as a clash of egos than anything.

Admitedly, some superb arguments have been raised. And my mind has been opened on a variety of subjects. But enough surely.

I've just spent the last hour reading this and my head now hurts.


Take care


P.S - to clear some statements as best my keyboard-zen-master style can manage.

-Whether you argue that an age might have possessed a certain level of science does not necessarily mean it was applied to swordsmanship. Certainly to a degree, I'll grant (inasmuch as weapon and armour manufacture, study of physiognomy, and observation of cause/effect). But a modern day football player, or indeed special forces soldier, does not know the science of his art to the same degree as a nuclear phycicist. In my opinion. It is more a question of instilling conditioned reactions, and of applying an understanding of dynamics to particular situations. Creating instincs and learning how to use them.

-Psycholody is indeed not a strict science as say chemistry and, to the most part, physics. It is a kind of Pop-science. And I agree with the statement that it's empirical nature is derived from a study of drug effects, and of quantifiable observations of how x amount of people will respond to factor X as opposed to factor Z. Though a simplification, I'l' admit. I'm saying this as a Psychology graduate. Thus to say any martial art is scientific because phsychology is involved is kinda cartoon-association. It may involve science. But they're not quite the same thing.

-I  parry the edge of an opponent's blade with my flat. But ideally, the flat of mine against his flat. Though with the rear-edge kinda angled in slightly. Probably not technically correct, and apologies for the heinous terminology, but my two-cents. Or pence.

These are all responses to tangents, however. So you may wish to ignore them altogether.

And I hope no one's been offended. Too much.... :)

[montag]

-Psycholody is indeed not a strict science as say chemistry and, to the most part, physics. It is a kind of Pop-science. And I agree with the statement that it's empirical nature is derived from a study of drug effects, and of quantifiable observations of how x amount of people will respond to factor X as opposed to factor Z. Though a simplification, I'l' admit. I'm saying this as a Psychology graduate. Thus to say any martial art is scientific because phsychology is involved is kinda cartoon-association. It may involve science. But they're not quite the same thing.  

Didn't you learn that degree of precision in prediction does not a science make or unmake? If that were the case, physics wouldn't be a science anymore since Heisenberg. Just because something like the weather or the human mind and behaviour does not reduce to neat billiard ball causality and can readily be predetermined that doesn't mean the study of the matter is not a science.
And where's that "study of drug effects" come from? That's pharmacology or psychiatry (I personally don't regard the latter as a proper science since – as I experienced it and from the psychiatry books I read – it's founded on trial and error, not theory and test, but that's merely a layman's opinion, I'm a psychologist.). What about Behaviorism, cognitive psychology, neuro psychology, developmental psychology, social psychology, differential psychology. None of these have anything to do with drugs. So your statement is reducible to "its empirical nature is derived from empirical observations". Nice tautology.
You further state, that the involvement of psychology into anything doesn't make that subject a science. Well, of course it doesn't, otherwise "driving", "drinking", "dressing" and so on would all be sciences. Similarly, nothing becomes/is a sciences just because it involves physics. You're knocking down your own strawman here. Something does become a science or the topic of scientific investigation when you apply scientific methods to the factors relevant to it, whether these factors are psychological or physical is rather irrelevant.

[Drifter Bob]

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. :-)

There were two major battles between the Mongols and mixed armies of European Knights.  One was between the Mongols and an army headed by the king of Hungary, and the other was between the Mongols and the king of Poland and the Teutonic Knights.  The latter also included contingents of Knights Templar.

In both cases the western forces had combined armies including knights, infantry and marksmen (mostly crossbowmen) though the marksmen and infantry in particular were nowhere near the high level of training one would find later in the medieval period.

Both battles ended in a strategic victory for the Mongols, particularly the battle against the Hungarians, but contrary to popular opinion both battles cost the Mongols far more in casualties than they had bargained for, in spite of piss poor tactical planning and discipline by the bulk of the Western forces.

The early 20th century military historian Hans Delbruk wrote a very salient analysis of these battles in his book Medieval Warfare (part of a three part series)

Later on the Mongols allied with the Crusader states in their invasion and destruction of the Arab kingdoms, and later against the Mamelukes of Egypt.  This was because the local Mongol general was nominally a Christian (of the Nestorian branch), though at one point the Crusaders actually allied with the mamelukes against the Mongols briefly.  The Crusader Kingdoms were too weak though at that point to affect the war much either way.

JR

[Crusader]

My apologies, contracycle, for incorrectly guessing at your motive.  Note that I did place the word "seem" before "offended".  I realized what I was doing, and was not trying to be confrontational.

However, I cannot deny that, at least it seems so to me, you come across as more than a little hostile on this subject.  

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Eastern Martial arts.  Would you consider them scientific?

[contracycle]

It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

I'm afraid I think its arrogant to attempt to seize the credibility of science in a milieu when that was not an option.  If the western way was scientific, then so muct have been the Mesopotamian, and the Egyptian, and the Macedonian, and the Carthaginian, and the Roman.  Several of those are much more intellectually sophisticated societies with a much longer academic tradition than that of the european west, what with the dark ages and all.  To do this makes the very term "science" value-less, as we are using it to describe any sort of investigation whatsoever.

Science, as a particular methodology, as a formal and articulated methodology, is a product of the last 300 years, case closed.

Crusader wrote:

However, I cannot deny that, at least it seems so to me, you come across as more than a little hostile on this subject.

In my opinion, ARMA makes a number of highly contentious claims of which I disaprove, and which I think are tangential to their practical direction.  It saddens me that so much rhetoric, as I see it, accompanies and to my mind diminishes their practical acheivements.  I will always have to wonder whther a particular position is held because they think its true, or becuase its an opportunity to bash the "nippophiles" or the secret cabal intent on denying the west its true heritage of martial arts.  This stuff is badly counter-productive, IMO.  I wish the ARMA would spend more time in their articles telling us what they do know, what they have learned, and less time complaining about some fencing master in the 30's.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Eastern Martial arts. Would you consider them scientific?

Not exactly, becuase I use the term more precsiely than that, I feel.  Certainly I have a tremendous respect for the methodology of teaching they employ.  Overall, I regard it as a highly sophisticated pedagogical apparatus.  I think an attempt to develop a western martial art could well learn a lot from these methodologies, which is one of the reasons I dislike the rejectionist bent the ARMA appears to have.

[Bastoche]

Science, as a particular methodology, as a formal and articulated methodology, is a product of the last 300 years, case closed.

As a scientist myself, I don't agree with this. First it was probably more like 4-500 years ago. Second, the only different thing between the "modern" science and what was before is nothing but a label. Before there was science. It was just not recognized as such. As a scientist, what I consider to be science is a systematic study of any field. "Modern" science is a label on the 4 part system (hypothesis, observation, comparison, conclusion). I oppose "science" to "randomly trying anything until one find the solution". Like Jake said, it's only a matter of semantics. If the word "science" troubles you, let's use "systematic study".

Another point: my first language is french so maybe it's a trick of translation but... Psychology is not psychiatry. The former is the study of social disorder while the other is the study of mental disorder. Psychology can somethings be cured without drugs. Psychiatric problem more often than not can't. Schizofrenia (sp?) is a psychiatric issue. Depression is a psychological one. Of course both are intricatly related but they are very different. Psychologists are therapist. Psychiatrist are doctors.

[Muggins]

When I consider Eastern Martial Arts nowadays, I always tend to get bogged down in the "highly sophisticated pedagogical" manner of teaching. Modern hoplologistic thinking (mouthful, that) holds that the major Japanese, Chinese and Korean arts have been specifically designed with the good of the student in mind, rather than fighting supremacy. Discipline, physical fitness, self-confidence, all these principles are designed into the syllabus because that is what was required for schools in the late 19th and early 20th century. The whole system of belts, katas, advanced and basic techniques would horrify the old masters, who rarely taught more than 3 or 4 students they handpicked. But for the purposes of the army in Japan and Korea (China is a little different), the early introduction of martial arts into schools was essential to breed fit, disciplined (read brain dead) soldiers. Kenjutsu was stripped of much of its prestige, karate lost the free form flow, Taekwando grew to be the kicking contest it is today.

In many ways, what we consider eastern martial arts today is a toned down version of the intensely secretive arts passed from master to student for ages in the Orient. As my background is Goju Ryu karate (I have a black belt somewhere), this is what I shall refer to. Some of the karate people I know who are now trying to reconstruct the original Okinawan styles say it is amazing how different the old days were. For example, daggers and knives were used often, and weapons training was often a starting point. Self-defence, i.e. kill and disable the opponent as soon as possible, was the goal, and that was what was taught. The secretive nature of the art is also emphasised- every master saved up his collection of tricks while attempting to learn his contemporaries. What also comes through is the distortions commonly assumed in the art- that it was a peasant art, it was an old art, etc. Some of the recent work points to it being a merchant art, which only started deviating from the Chinese forms relatively recently, in the middle of the 18th century.

I can think of various different examples of how the incorporation of physical fitness into schools has changed the entire face of eastern martial arts. In some ways, the small bands of eager learners for the western arts is sometimes closer to the original eastern spirit than people acknowledge. It is about learning and extending the art, about creativity and the willingless to learn. What has often turned me away from EMA is the lack of such- you try something new, you get told "stick to the form".  This then is my take on the pedagogical approach of EMA (I can reference any of these thoughts if you wish).

Which is not to say that those of us swinging swords around are not without faults. My beef with ARMA has always been in the marketing. "Our way is the best", "Our panel of experts is better than yours", etc. In this game, with such a small group of devotees, such oneupmanship is self- defeating. Yes it would be nice to be mainstream, but not yet. Similarly, we have to learn from what is currently available, and my karate and aikido are value for interpreting other ways to fight.

And I won't even touch the science bit....

James

[Calithena]

The scientific method is generalizing from sensory experience and testing those generalizations. This is literally older than any written work we know of: humans have been doing it forever. A lot of animals even do it, in a limited sort of way (they can't state their generalizations).

Quantum physics offers the greatest degree of precision in prediction of any scientific theory ever yet put forward by human beings, at least if you use the pedestrian measure of the numerical agreement between what the theory predicts and what is observed. The indeterminacy principle does not magically make QM into meteorology, though it does imply that there are certain pairs of qualities of physical entities (position and momentum, energy and time) which are not jointly fixed to a mathematically absolute degree of precision. But there are other qualities which can be so fixed, and there are whole, valuable fields of scientific inquiry which never reach a level of precision even in the ballpark of where the indeterminacy principle would matter to them.

I've learned a lot of really interesting things about historical fighting from this thread, which is why I keep checking it. Thanks to the relevant posters for their good work.

[contracycle]

If "science" is to be used so broadly, then the "deductive divination" practiced by the Sumerians will have to be treated as a true science rather than a proto-science.  The Sumerians made the first serious attempt to catalogue and define the world, to record and deduce divine cause and material effect, and to identify the exceptions and discrepancies that pointed to gaps in their knowledge.  There is certainly some form of scientific endeavour going on.  People are thinking, analysing, trying to make sense of their environment.  But it is also such a far cry from the modern praxis of science that to refer to it as science is functionally misleading.  

Muggins wrote:

I can think of various different examples of how the incorporation of physical fitness into schools has changed the entire face of eastern martial arts. In some ways, the small bands of eager learners for the western arts is sometimes closer to the original eastern spirit than people acknowledge. It is about learning and extending the art, about creativity and the willingless to learn. What has often turned me away from EMA is the lack of such- you try something new, you get told "stick to the form". This then is my take on the pedagogical approach of EMA (I can reference any of these thoughts if you wish).

Absolutely agreed; free-thinking they are not.  But as an institution with specific goals - turn out X pupils able to perform Y manoeuvres - they have a very refined procedure for achieving those goals.  And this is partly because they already know what it is that they want to teach, they are not trying to teach AND discover.  Is ARMA a school, or a laboratory?  

This thread was originally raised as a critique of the K vs. S article.  Attacks on that article, and on some of the other opinions expressed on the ARMA site, are not simultaneously attacks on everything ARMA touches.  I definitely SUPPORT the efforts they are making to learn how these tools handle in a practical way.    This distinction is a caveat I feel I need to state again.  It is NOT their practical efforts I criticise, only the surrounding "hype", as I see it.

[Salamander]

As Calithena has pointed out, we have been using a scientific method since before we discovered fire. Just because you do not recognize it as "modern" does not make it any different.  If it were not for scientific method, we would not have been able to develope a knowledge and technology base similar to that which we have now. To say that science did not exist until Herr. Mendel came along is the quintessence of arrogance, not the ARMA debate.

I am dissappointed in those of you who are so great as to look down upon the skills and methods of the Masters as written down in the fechtbuchs. Have you ever read one? Have you ever even heard of the existence of these precious texts prior to the inception of TRoS?

Have you ever picked up a real sword?

Have you ever tried to move with one in your hand?

Have you ever hefted one?

Felt it's incredible balance?

Its weight?

Admired its geometry and realized what the weapon was designed to do specifically and understand the implications to how you employ the weapon?

The feel of the shape and texture of the grip and pommel interacting with the lines of your hands or the leather of your gauntlet?

Ever swung one with intent?

Perhaps tried to perform a few cuts in the air?

Take out the occaissional rogue frozen pumpkin on a snowy, blustery day?

See how it feels when you use simple geometry and math to counter an opponent's cut and hit his arm? With a practice weapon of course...

The techniques involved in the use of a sword are quite scientific. Terribly so in fact. The art is to teach your body to do what the techniques dictate. Until you have done this, how can you be so sure? Honestly.

[toli]

It is pompous and limited to assume that science was invented in the last 300 years, and that all previous mentions of the term are invalid, because they don't conform to a high-school definition of the term "science."

As with most arguments, this appears to be about semantics.

Jake,
who's degree is in linguistics, a science.

As a scientist (PhD Ecology), I think you can easily define the scientific method as simply "learning by testing".  Some people would like to add "testing through manipulative experiments", which would eliminate many of the 'soft sciences', but that in my mind is is silly.    

Different groups of scientists, often think differently about what science is.  For example, my father is a mathematician.  He has argued (much to my annoyance and as only a mathematician can) that ecology isn't really science because there are so few LAWs that we can define that are all encompassing.  What ever.  

I think if you test your ideas through observation (collection of survey data) or experimentation...you at least have a scientific approach...NT