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!

Jake Norwood wrote: 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.
...
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).

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.

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."

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.

Bankuei wrote:
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.

Bankuei wrote:

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.

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

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.

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.

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*

Bankuei wrote: 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.

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.

Thirsty Viking wrote: IIRC nunchucks were a toll used to flail grain?

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").

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

Bankuei wrote:
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.

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

Bankuei wrote:
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.

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

I have to say, martial arts don't suffer nearly as much when people have no weapons as they do when people have no good reason to kill each other man to man. Why not? Because a real martial art doesn't make sense to a culture unless they need to use it. People will use the easiest means necessary to reach their martial needs.

It sounds like all this comes back to cultural institutions and social structures. Why does society X have a martial art? What is that martial art, and what does society X expect to do with it (spiritual growth, puit fighting, self defense in a bar, use on a battlefield, etc)?

Over time, society X shifts and slowly becomes society Y (maybe it had an industrial revolution, a consolidation of political power, or was taken over by someone else). The question now is that you have a martial art tailored for a society that no longer really exists.

So what happens? Well, the martial art either is preserved as an anachronism, proves itself to still be useful, evolves to fit society Y, or dies off. (and probably a few other variations I can't think of) In my admittedly uninformed view, a question of weapons / no weapons would need to be part of this social change, and each particular case would do it differently, I think.

It sounds like all this comes back to cultural institutions and social structures. Why does society X have a martial art? What is that martial art, and what does society X expect to do with it (spiritual growth, puit fighting, self defense in a bar, use on a battlefield, etc)?

If we define a martial art as something that must have a clear military use, then a LOT of things popularly referred to as 'martial arts' would no longer qualify. A glib response would be that any Japanese style ending with a 'do' is in question. Is this a fair poke? No, not really; its far too general to have any real meaning.

The reason why I bring it up, however, is that I'm a fan of using definitions that fit everyday life. If 90% of a given population could agree X is a martial art and Y isn't, then IMO its pretty useful to try and articulate what the definition being used is. The problem of course with a lexicon-based method is that terms sometimes end up being arbitrary or contradictory.

So, to answer your question, in my opinion, we should not use martial use as the sole criterion for whether something is a martial art or not. What it actually is, however, is something I'm not as clear on right now :)

he reason why I bring it up, however, is that I'm a fan of using definitions that fit everyday life. If 90% of a given population could agree X is a martial art and Y isn't, then IMO its pretty useful to try and articulate what the definition being used is. The problem of course with a lexicon-based method is that terms sometimes end up being arbitrary or contradictory.

Bankuei wrote: 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.

Jake Norwood wrote: 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).