What kind of Martial Arts?

[John_Clements]

I agree, Fernando. People into the martial arts seldom really study history, and military least of all. Their educated more by anime, video games, and D&D, it seems.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Personally I think that of course there will be “underlying” asian martial art techniques.
A Chinese, Indian (as in India), a Japanese body moves and have the same articulations than a European body.
There is a fair amount of eastern martial art, which covers most if not all the possible options in technique and application (how you deliver a technique) so it is bound to happen

If you take the breaking of the leg in ringeck
In dem bain sind zwen brich:
There are two breaks at the leg
Der erst.
Begryff im sin bain mitt baiden henden an, mitt der ainen hand ober demenckel, mitt der andern an das kny. Das gät dar, alß der erst bainbruch.

Grab him at the leg with both/either gips/hands, with one hand over the ankle and the other upon the knee. It goes there as the first break at the leg.
è Self-explanatory

(76 r )Der ander bruch.
The second break
Begreyff jm ain bain ober dem anckel mitt baiden henden, vnd ruck imdas über die achsel, so brüchst du im das bain.

Grab him with either/both hands/grip at the leg above the ankle, and turn/move it over the shoulder/armpit so you break his leg
è Self-explanatory

That is exactly what you do against a kick in aikido (and I would suspect ju-jitsu). So yes there is Japanese technique underlying it but we can easily prove where it is coming from and disprove that it is a rip off.


For those with Eastern martial arts experience, the way European martial art is treated should not really be a surprise. I have been practicing in different country for a while now 20-15 years with interruption and change of style. (muy thai, military close combat, wing tsung and aikido) all that spread between France, Ireland and UK and I used to read martial art magazines.
It is quite clear that every year there is legion of “new ultimate fighting method” or “ultimate ancient style now reveled”
Do not get me wrong some of that new style or new/different way of looking at things is actually very good. But the vast majority is danglers and disappears within a year or two.
The common thread in the vast majority of those disappearing cases, created guys with a short curriculum in one or many style.
That was the case 20 years ago and that is still if not even more so now.

On the top of that in the 80-90, there was a trend in several arts where unqualified people in one art opened dojo/class in a style or an ersatz of a style without proper consent, training, or qualification.
As we say In france a scalded cat is weary of even cold water.
Personally, I think we will be recognized/acknowledged by the martial community before we are by the classical fencing or riding community.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Philippe

Personally, I think we will be recognized/acknowledged by the martial community before we are by the classical fencing or riding community.

I think i heard that dressage actualy was a knightly riding art, lol, wonder if they would do it in a full suit of plate in competition?

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

well
It would be better (in fact you can use the armour to hide) and you can clean an armour much quickly than bloddy with jodpurs and black caot.
That being said i never won any important dressage competition (but i had long hair at the time) the first and only regional competition i rode in, I fell on the paddok warming up my horse.(you do that just before it is your turn to go)
Hence two piece of advice, If change foot in gallop do not do it on patch of ice and in winter thing need to have been exposed to the sun for a certain amount of time to defrost.
I let you imagine the gigles from the official tribune when i introduced my horse and myself. with half of the ground of the paddock attached to on side.

[Jay Vail]

Perhaps the Roman word for army, exercitus (derived from “exerceo” meaning training or exercise, to keep busy), refers to the fact that the foundation of Western armies is not weapons skill per se but drill -- that is, the ability to march and maneuver in formation, a point strongly made by Victor Davis Hanson in “Carnage and Culture.” It was drill and the ability to maneuver and fight in tight, disciplined formations that set Greek, Roman, and subsequent Western armies apart from the armies of other nations and cultures. In fact, the Greek hoplite was not formally trained in weapons use according to Peter Connolly, but only in how to march and to stay in ranks. If he wanted individual weapons training, he had to pay for it himself from a martial arts teacher or hoplomachus. It appears from Vegetius that the Romans departed somewhat from the Greek model by providing for extensive weapons training, but they always stressed drill as the foundation of their armies.

Thus, in Latin an army or exercitus could be a trained band.

[JeffGentry]

Hey guy's

I know in the Modern U.S military They use close order drill to develope discipline and get you listening and develope a sense of team work.

There are is in some respect's a living western Martial tradition in the U.S. and british military alot of the close order drill and ceremony has it's basis in ancient training mehtod's, they have "updated" it, it does have an old base in how and why they use certain thing's.


Jeff

[ksiajdn]

However, there were actual techniques for weapons, as the actual researches about the gladiatorial activity and culture exemplify. When you look at fight in general, there is always a tendency to develop specific techniques; as many historical documents from different sources mention, the bretons used a parry & thrust technique to fight the saxon weapons, for example. As for armies not being trained formally in weapons, that was a common thing, actually. I mean, you could not count with an army formed completely by expert or well trained swordsmen only. As many accounts show us, most of the time, a feudal lord would form a force of mainly peasents out of need for a hard situation. For a closer example, we could take the modern firearms. The mugger who wants to rob you with his pistol probably won't have formal training in shooting, but there are what we could call well trained shooters. Not that training with a firearm is similar to the context of melee weapons, but it's a basic principle.
Forgive me if my english is not understandable!

[J.Amiel_Angeles]

I'm a little leery of V.D.H. especially within the context of medieval warfare. After all, he dismisses the entire medieval period in one battle, the Battle of Tours, and it's not even a very representative one at that. There is no doubt that drill and discipline were a large part of Greek and Roman armies... but what about the later Roman imperial armies that were composed mostly of feoderati? Or of the generic medieval armies? As a medieval affecionado and as ardent a proponent of it as any here, I agree, they are not the rabble that people said they were. But to claim that ALL the Western armies from Greek times on drilled is a bit silly and NOT at all supported by historical evidence. Swiss cantons and goedendag-wielding Flemish militia were unusual. Even the English armies that demolished the French never drilled in large groups. IIRC, most people did not train in groups larger than a 'lance' or conroi-sized groups. At least medieval armies were not any more or less drilled than the equivalent samurai army, for instance (read Stephen Turnbull). I've often been dismayed by Western history scholars who make sweeping generalizations with regards to other cultures without ever really studying these cultures. It's as dismaying as the opposite trend, scholars of other cultures making bizarre and sweeping claims about the West.

In fact, I would hazard to say that early and high medieval armies placed a greater stress on individual weapons skill as they did in cooperation and drill. The martial arts ability and individual prowess of the knight, especially in high and late medieval eras, is amply seen in the historical record-- but so is his inability to work in large groups.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Tell me about it. I play AD&D (have since age 11) and the current players handbook lists a bastard sword as weighing 10 pounds. My DM insisted that the writers had done their homework and must be correct. I argued that it doesn't and it ended up with having him handle my Albion Sempach to convince him. Makes me appreciate Jakes TROS system so much more.

[Jay Vail]

Amiel, I don’t think that VDH would disagree that many medieval armies departed from the Greek-Roman military ideal of disciplined infantry fighting in ranks. His point is that the Greeks and Romans perfected this ideal and that ideal formed the foundation of Western military success. Admittedly, not all Western armies at all times fought according to the ideal, as he admits in Carnage and Culture. In fact, his point is that the ideal was *rediscovered* and reapplied in Europe at the end of the medieval period, which led directly to Western military domination of the world.

If you want a strong sense of the superiority of the Western concept of shock battle over the fluid, undisciplined formations of other peoples, you should read Xenophon’s The Persian Expedition.

[Mike Chidester]

Well, when people ask that, they're expecting some martial arts-esque name, like Kenshido or something. So when people find out that I do martial arts and ask, I'll typically respond Blossfechten. Getting into a 5-minute explanation of german and italian masters and such with people who don't really care seems like a waste of time.

If they're really interested they'll ask what kind of style it is, and then I elaborate a little more. European martial arts, which were lost for centuries, but are now being ressurrected through the study of combat manuals that the old Masters left behind. That usually satisfies people. In fact, in my experience, it's people with backgrounds in Asian martial arts that tend to accept it more readily. Only "armchair warriors" whose knowledge of martial arts is based in movies and anime will challenge its validity fairly consistently.

I find that problems only start if I get defensive about it from the start. If one does not treat WMAs as if they were legitimate and accepted arts, his listeners will pick up on it. If I present it and discuss it just as I would Tae Kwon Do or Jujitsu (which I have also studied), people accept it quite readily. Although I can discuss ARMA with considerably more pride than TKD.

As to the issue of legitimacy based on continuity and age, what makes a "living" art? I can positively say that at least some of the techniques we use were created by ARMA members as interpolations of techniques in the fechtbuchen. Heck, I can think of one instance where an ARMA member said "You know what? That technique was developed right here in Provo. John saw it and said he was claiming it for ARMA in general."

The fact is, as we get a better handle on the ancient arts, we'll eventually be able to pick up where the old masters left off and continue to advance their arts. A static martial art is one that is just waiting to die.

[Dak Wade]

Good questions and answers to the often-expressed interest in “what do you do”. I am a newbie to the whole WMA and ARMA and as to that I have been reading all the “books” I can get so when people see them they of course ask why I am reading them, my response has been I wish to become a “swordsman” and this is where you start. I have been fortunate so far and the responses have been positive and even inquisitive but I understand the somewhat self-conscious aspect of then trying to explain to people why I would be interested in studying something that could be used to “hurt” people form my experience with “explaining” why I took Tae Kwon Do. My answer to that was simple “because I can” followed by “would you like to join me”. That is what I truly love about any “marshal training” not whether it is “alive” or “dead” but that we, thanks to many many people, have the opportunity to study these “arts” today and experience the hard work, frustration, and fun of them. I my opinion I refuse to “justify” my reasons for studying the “arts” and focus on the joy of the learning experience. Who cares what is better or if they think it is “goofy” I love it and am having fun, if they want to compare what “style” is better then I say “train in both and fight yourself” I am in it for the Joy of being able to “do” it not defend it.

[Alfred Wong]

My one cent here. Didn't read all posts...

It's even harder for me to explain to others, I would normally say I practise "European Swordsmanship", but then nearly all people would cry out "Sport fencing!". Then I would say "You remember the lord of the rings?"

Poor example, but it's perhaps the easiest way to explain...

Even allowing others to see our sparring clips, a lot of them would just say,

"You fight like children" or "You are just messing round!" and "It's absolutely rubbish" or worse "It's not the way! Wrong!"

Well. No matter how good we fight, for the common people - good fight is flashy with jumpy pokey stuff. You know those "kung fu" movies. One heroic guy with a Jian (one handed chinese sword) and slain the whole armed army (arming with polearm, heavy complex amour, bow, and all devastating weapons on battle field) , ended up winning without a scratch.

Movie influence is big! The concept of European is still a very new idea - people just cannot get it. It takes time- and in the EMA circles it takes time, and we must tolerate the discrimination...

Best wishes,
Alfred <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[BradRaven]

I think i heard that dressage actualy was a knightly riding art, lol, wonder if they would do it in a full suit of plate in competition?

Jeff

Dressage is actually based on knightly combat. Dressage is an art form of horsemanship where control is very fine and subtle. The higher level dressage includes things such as the canter half-pass (almost a sideways movement), passage (a slow-motion trot), piaffe (a "trot in place"), and pirouettes (a 360-degree circle, in place, at the canter).

These motions had particular use for cavalry in combat, although I'm fairly certain things have changed slightly. For example, the piaffe, where the horse trots in place without moving, would be used to keep the horse warm and ready.

There are more advanced Dressage moves called "The airs above the Ground" which are only done by two groups in the world. One is the Spanish Riding School, located in Austria. [It may be confusing, but it is called a Spanish school due to the origins of horses.] The other is located in Samur, France. They are called the "Cadre Noir", and are a lot less famous than the, "World Famous Lippizaner Stallions" which are the horses used and bred for the Spanish Riding School.

The airs above the ground can only be done by the strongest horses, and that pretty much means only stallions of certain breeds, typically "warmbloods."

There are three major moves in the "Airs above the Ground" that are pretty famous. I'm certain there are other historical moves that warhorses were taught but are forgotten.

In "The Levade" the horse sits back onto his hindquarters and sinks down to the ground in back. The front comes up so that the hind feet are under the center of balance. The front feet are tucked up and in the air. Enormous strength is required to return to standing position, as well as maintain balance in such a tight position.

The "Capriole" is where the horse leaps into the air and kicks out its legs. A potentially disabling or killing blow to nearby enemies. I believe the "Couprade" is similar, but the horse tucks up its legs and is used to evacuate the rider when surrounded by enemies. The horse will actually jump over opponents to get away.

The "Courbette" is a manouver where the horse tucks up its forelegs and hops forward on its hindlegs. A guess on my part is that the horse would lash out with its forelegs to kill or disable opponents, or simply to clear a path, though this isn't seen in "Classical Dressage" performances by the Spanish Riding School or the Cadre Noir.

From what I know of working with horses, any horse trained to such an extent for such a purpose would be useless for anything else. I can't see any historical European figure training a horse to such extremes just to hitch it to a wagon. I've read that warhorses were essentially hayburners and weren't good for anything else, and thus were expensive to keep. I imagine that is true, but I don't have any historical sources to back this up.

I'm very new to ARMA [not a member yet] so sorry if this is common information. I haven't seen anything yet that seems to focus on mounted combat, beyond references to jousting.

~Brad

[JeffGentry]

Hey Brad

Dressage is an art form of horsemanship where control is very fine and subtle. The higher level dressage includes things such as the canter half-pass (almost a sideways movement), passage (a slow-motion trot), piaffe (a "trot in place"), and pirouettes (a 360-degree circle, in place, at the canter).

I have spent a little time with horse's, not much in the way of english have seen a little dressage, don't know much about it, what you say make's sense though.

I can see how dressage type riding could be beneficial in a tight cavalry formation to move around with alot of horse and men.

The Levade, Capriole, Courbette

These sound like individual move's that might be useful once the battle is joined.

The mounted combat does seem interesting, I don't kow how much work has been done on combat horse training and such might be an interesting field to delve into, seem's a majority of what is out there at present is just in the Ren. Faire jousting type of thing.


Jeff