Euro vs. Japan

[J. F. McBrayer]

Just to get us out of the "clash of civilizations" mindset, a recent article.

Let me say that I am proud of my European heritage -- but what I am particularly proud of is the Enlightenment emphasis on equality, tolerance, and reason. If I were to choose a martial art to reflect that, I suppose I'd be studying smallsword or spadroon (or flintlock rifle). But I am studying Fiore's longsword and the Bolognese sword because I like the aesthetics of both the weapons and the documents that teach them. In any case, degrading anyone's heritage would be disrespectful to the Enlightened values of my own.

[Nathan Dexter]

I'm not trying to degrade anyone, I'm saying that throughout history, certain civilizations have been more technologicaly advanced than others.

[kenneth house]

I'm not trying to degrade anyone, I'm saying that throughout history, certain civilizations have been more technologicaly advanced than others.

As long as you look properly at this matter, you'll see that no one culture has had a monopoly on anything advanced. For example, Ta-Seti/Khemit-Ta-Meri/Ta-Nahasi, all indigenous African societies, were among the most "advanced," if not the most advanced of their times. And although much of the theoretical knowledge for which they are known can be found further to the south, they are no longer as they were.

On the flip side of things, Germany and what is now the U.K. were not the technological equals of the above, and much of what we classify as Western may not be so, such as the origins of the script by which we write these posts herein, the use of paper (Khemit-Papyri/papyris), the printing press (Chinese) and the use of advanced projectile technology such as rocket propelled technology and the gun (Chinese and Arabic).

As to the supposed egalitarian nature of Western culture, I would argue against such theories, as the Chinese Exclusionary Act of the 19th Cent., Salem witch hunts, African enslavement, the imprisoning of Japanese during WW2, Adolf Hitler's Germany, various "Aryan" rights associations in the States and the riots among the "minorities" in France and Germany, to name but a few, would indicate. And keep in mind, much of the above were a part of some legalized law or socially endorsed behavior.

Places such as ancient Mali, for example, which allowed Moslem presence and was made up of various African ethnic groups, and which was authorized by the legal bodies thereof, such as Mali's Mansa Musa, reveal the opposite of an egalitarian base supposedly defining Western governance and society. The same can be said of Ancient Ghana, at Kumbi-Saleh, where the king authorized the presence of an Arab quarter.

Likewise, it is also the case that Africans defeated Western and Islamic medieval assaults, such as the 15th Cent Portuguese assault on Bissagos Island. It was not until the 19th Cent., and with African assistance, that any European conquest could be seen. Likewise, Western projectile technology was absolutely no guarentee of military success, and it was more often than not African assistance which solidified any such results.

I'll provide some links on the next post.

KH

[Rodolfo Martínez]

As to the supposed egalitarian nature of Western culture, I would argue against such theories, as the Chinese Exclusionary Act of the 19th Cent., Salem witch hunts, African enslavement, the imprisoning of Japanese during WW2, Adolf Hitler's Germany, various "Aryan" rights associations in the States and the riots among the "minorities" in France and Germany, to name but a few, would indicate. And keep in mind, much of the above were a part of some legalized law or socially endorsed behavior.

I agree with Mr. House but we must not forget that racist and genocide behaviour is not an european monopoly. The armenian genocide performed by turks, in Uganda, the 1970´s president Idi Amin who expelled thousand of Acholi, Lango, Indian and other ethnic groups as well as Hindus and Christians in Uganda, Palestina and Israel people (Jews against Arabs), Native americans and latin americans facing racism in north american countries, and a lot more.

Likewise, it is also the case that Africans defeated Western and Islamic medieval assaults, such as the 15th Cent Portuguese assault on Bissagos Island. It was not until the 19th Cent., and with African assistance, that any European conquest could be seen. Likewise, Western projectile technology was absolutely no guarentee of military success, and it was more often than not African assistance which solidified any such results.

I again agree with Mr. House, as battle not only depends on military technology or quantity, enviromental and terrain knowledge is also important. When Napoleon tried to conquer Russia, his soldiers were killed by the strong winter.
Romans had a lot of African territories, not in medieval times, but is not totally certain to say that no conquest could be seen until XIX Century.
El Cid fought against Moors´ African allies too.

Something similar happened when first spanish conqueror´s reached Central America, they had to ally with some tribe becouse they didn´t know how to get food and plant the strange new vegetables. (Of course, they could hunt, but hunt wasn´t enough)

[kenneth house]

As to the supposed egalitarian nature of Western culture, I would argue against such theories, as the Chinese Exclusionary Act of the 19th Cent., Salem witch hunts, African enslavement, the imprisoning of Japanese during WW2, Adolf Hitler's Germany, various "Aryan" rights associations in the States and the riots among the "minorities" in France and Germany, to name but a few, would indicate. And keep in mind, much of the above were a part of some legalized law or socially endorsed behavior.

I agree with Mr. House but we must not forget that racist and genocide behaviour is not an european monopoly. The armenian genocide performed by turks, in Uganda, the 1970´s president Idi Amin who expelled thousand of Acholi, Lango, Indian and other ethnic groups as well as Hindus and Christians in Uganda, Palestina and Israel people (Jews against Arabs), Native americans and latin americans facing racism in north american countries, and a lot more.

I was responding to John Clemens' impression that the sort of tolerance discussed here is a Western developement, and that Westerners are the cornerstone of technological advancement when, in fact, it has innovated many of the developements some of its scholars claim were its inventions.

I would also caution Mr. Clemens that he is not culturally capable of speaking about culture ideas beyond those of the West, as his reasoning seems to indicate, and that he is ill prepared to speak on behalf of what I, as a person involved with African culture, have experienced (as in what concepts are endemic to it). Additionally, pride-comes-before-a-fall, and it is this very falsely applied since of pride that was the cornerstone of Hitler's "scholars" of the theory of an "Aryan" homeland and its supposed (erroneous) foundation for virtually all human developement.

As to your comments about the Romas and later French campaigns, keep in mind that Rome never conquered ancient Nubia, and Haitians defeated Napoleon with a force that also included Spanish and English mercenaries.

Likewise, it is also the case that Africans defeated Western and Islamic medieval assaults, such as the 15th Cent Portuguese assault on Bissagos Island. It was not until the 19th Cent., and with African assistance, that any European conquest could be seen. Likewise, Western projectile technology was absolutely no guarentee of military success, and it was more often than not African assistance which solidified any such results.

I again agree with Mr. House, as battle not only depends on military technology or quantity, enviromental and terrain knowledge is also important. When Napoleon tried to conquer Russia, his soldiers were killed by the strong winter.

Romans had a lot of African territories, not in medieval times, but is not totally certain to say that no conquest could be seen until XIX Century.
El Cid fought against Moors´ African allies too.

Something similar happened when first spanish conqueror´s reached Central America, they had to ally with some tribe becouse they didn´t know how to get food and plant the strange new vegetables. (Of course, they could hunt, but hunt wasn´t enough)

Which is often left out.

[Nathan Dexter]

Yes, I agree, especially in the middle ages when most scientific/mathematic/cultural advances took place in the arab world and africa. but the middle east, and east asia especialy have probably provided the most amount of advancement in history. Even today, the most scientific and technological work is being done in the US and Europe, and east Asia.

[kenneth house]

I would like for Mr. Clemens to provide evidence of Medieval and Rennaissance European clashes against the forces of ancient Ghana, Mali and Songhai which illustrate the alledged (read erroneous) concept that European warriors, using the armaments which make up the corpus of ARMA's curriculum, observed military suppremacy therein. Otherwise, the point is unsubstantiated at best.

As we here are a martial arts organization, studying European military sciences, and since military history is what it is, when two cultures clash on the battlefield the results are pretty objective as to the “relative value” of the martial tradition of each side. Therefore conclusions can indeed be reached as to the relative merits and superiority of the victors core values.

If this is the case, why study Medieval and Renaissance martial arts at all? In the narrow sense you define above, modern European and American military sciences are clearly superior to pre-modern and early-modern European military sciences, and rather than wasting our time with longswords and so forth, we should be studying rifle marksmanship and small unit tactics, or, preferably, artillery and air support tactics and strategy.

People may have reasons other than martial effectiveness alone for studying any given martial art, European or otherwise. I see no reason to disparage those reasons in and of themselves.

[Allen Johnson]

well, first off you cant create sources that don't exist. With that same rationale can you provide evidence that native African armies defeated European ones?
Also we need to define "ancient" Ghana, Mali and Songhai. I wouldnt classify medieval and certianly not Renaissance Europe as ancient. Therefore ancient African armies could never be in contact with Medieval Europe.
I don't think I read anywhere where John stated that these sources existed. We DO know that post-Renaissance and early modern European armies had clashes with native Africans all over the continent and had mainly victories. I would not be able to provide sources at this time as it is not a main focus of study for me.

The other thing to remember is that 'martial culture' isnt a gague to measure another culture by being "good" or "bad". All it measures is sucsess on the battlefild. Looking at a conflict I am a bit more familiar with in the Spainards war on the native Meso-Americans. The Mexicas and the other peoples they came in contact with had an established martial culture. No one will question the native Mexicans fought well and hard. They had a strong, and well established system of combat. They executed battlefield tactics as well as brilliance in using terrain and the surroundings to their advantage. They also had many hundreds times the manpower as the Spainards. According to the personal records of the Spanish men who fought there, the Mexicas were a very fearful army to be reckoned with. Yet the Spainards avoided defeat dozens and dozens of times and eventually won and became the dominant culture there. Does this make Mexicas martial culture "bad"? No, but what it does say is that the Spainards 'martial culture' proved to be more effective at this point in time in this place. This is not a racist statment but one of fact. Spanish is now spoken in Latin America, not Nahual (there still are obviously some speakers left). The main religion is Catholic, not a native one. The dominance of the Spainards 'martial culture' paved the way for a dominance in the national culture.

[kenneth house]

well, first off you cant create sources that don't exist. With that same rationale can you provide evidence that native African armies defeated European ones?
Also we need to define "ancient" Ghana, Mali and Songhai. I wouldnt classify medieval and certianly not Renaissance Europe as ancient. Therefore ancient African armies could never be in contact with Medieval Europe.
I don't think I read anywhere where John stated that these sources existed. We DO know that post-Renaissance and early modern European armies had clashes with native Africans all over the continent and had mainly victories. I would not be able to provide sources at this time as it is not a main focus of study for me.

The other thing to remember is that 'martial culture' isnt a gague to measure another culture by being "good" or "bad". All it measures is sucsess on the battlefild. Looking at a conflict I am a bit more familiar with in the Spainards war on the native Meso-Americans. The Mexicas and the other peoples they came in contact with had an established martial culture. No one will question the native Mexicans fought well and hard. They had a strong, and well established system of combat. They executed battlefield tactics as well as brilliance in using terrain and the surroundings to their advantage. They also had many hundreds times the manpower as the Spainards. According to the personal records of the Spanish men who fought there, the Mexicas were a very fearful army to be reckoned with. Yet the Spainards avoided defeat dozens and dozens of times and eventually won and became the dominant culture there. Does this make Mexicas martial culture "bad"? No, but what it does say is that the Spainards 'martial culture' proved to be more effective at this point in time in this place. This is not a racist statment but one of fact. Spanish is now spoken in Latin America, not Nahual (there still are obviously some speakers left). The main religion is Catholic, not a native one. The dominance of the Spainards 'martial culture' paved the way for a dominance in the national culture.

First, you are correct with the term "ancient" being used in this context. However, when what could be classified as "Medieval" and "Renaissance" period African armies clashed, there was no European supremacy. Europeans one some battles and lost some battles. The assistance of certain sectors of the African elite/royalty and mecantile sectors are the key factors to any later victories (19th Cent.). Likewise, when victories were achieved, they were normally held to coastal areas at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Angola

See also John K. Thornton's works, including "The Art of War in Angola," among others.

When one makes declarations of superiority, there should be evidence to back that up. My premise was that no culture has a monopoly on cultural, in this case martial, supremacy and that there are no extant documents, or other material of study, which could be used to support such a claim.

Since we are discussing European MAs as studied here, which do not include the study of European innovations/advancements in ballistics technology, unless I have missed something here, there needs to be evidence supporting some supposed martial supremacy. The facts point otherwise, that, largely, European armies got as much as they gave.

Please do not point out firearms technology (which was not a European invention as I have noted) as we should be comparing pre-firearms armaments technology. Likewise, African steel/iron was in no way inferior to the European variant, and provided weaponry of equal calibre.

So, were is the evidence for cultural supremist based pride? If you make the statement, as he did, alluding to European overall supremacy, then you had better provide some form of evidence, whether documented or not.

You mention victories over African armies...Is this with the two-handed sword, great sword, pike, falcion, et al...? ARMA does not study the use of the Gatlin Gun nor the M16. In fact, I do not recall ARMA having any projectile weapons (archery, for ex.) as part of its study. We are talking with hand-held, hand-to-hand combat weaponry.

You mention modern victories...ARMA does not study modern weaponry, and, again, there is no history of European supremacy whether in the Medieval or Rennaissance periods. Even "modern" conflicts were not the result of overall supremacy which did not utilize African betrayal of African interests as an assist.

I would like evidence, in this regard, which would warrant the cultural pride about which Mr. Clemens speaks.

[kenneth house]

If this is the case, why study Medieval and Renaissance martial arts at all? In the narrow sense you define above, modern European and American military sciences are clearly superior to pre-modern and early-modern European military sciences, and rather than wasting our time with longswords and so forth, we should be studying rifle marksmanship and small unit tactics, or, preferably, artillery and air support tactics and strategy.

People may have reasons other than martial effectiveness alone for studying any given martial art, European or otherwise. I see no reason to disparage those reasons in and of themselves.

For the very reason that one is proud of his culture, and wants to understand something of how it did things historically. I think it is cool as hell to learn how the Europeans fought with swords, dagger, spears, wrestling, and so forth. And even if I do not like some of the bad things about my culture, I have a right to pursue its good things.

I am confused...? Who said you didn't have such a right? What you do not have is the right to make claims of cultural superiority in a vaccum. Europeans are no more superior to Africans and Asians than the latter are to Europeans. Each of these have been part of the ebb and flow of our species collective experiences. At present, the Japanese appear to be the champs. We'll see about tomorrow. Be proud, but watch the superior stuff. When I hear that, I start smelling the gas chamber.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I am confused...? Who said you didn't have such a right? What you do not have is the right to make claims of cultural superiority in a vaccum. Europeans are no more superior to Africans and Asians than the latter are to Europeans. Each of these have been part of the ebb and flow of our species collective experiences. At present, the Japanese appear to be the champs. We'll see about tomorrow. Be proud, but watch the superior stuff. When I hear that, I start smelling the gas chamber.

You are going out of your way to be insulted. You imagine offence where none is to be found. Your diatribes serve no purpose here.

I need not apologise to you or anybody else for anything I have stated.

I will not.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Be proud, but watch the superior stuff. When I hear that, I start smelling the gas chamber.

In my opinion, someone can be very proud of its Culture, but is not proud becouse he or she thinks that his or her culture is superior, becouse this pride generates intolerance, arrogancy and violence, but a proud becouse it´s culture is as it is. We can talk about military or metalurgical superiority without being racist. We must be aware of not transforming ¨Military superiority¨ into ¨Cultural superiority¨.

About superior stuff, i don´t think that japanese people are champions because of their blades or their technology. Their steel was pretty bad. they are champions because they showed to the world what marvelous blades they could forge with such bad metal. But actually, japanese seem to be so proud of their blades that seems that they see all other weapons, European and African, as a mount of clumsy pieces of sh t. This is an arrogant feeling wich they don´t discourage. I´m tired of otakus, becouse they saw it in Midnight´s Mr. Samurai Chops All Show, and even National Geographic Channel saying that katanas can cut metal armours (And this is true, Katanas and odachis can cut throug steel armours, concrete blocks, iron,etc... but they can´t cut a silk cordon made samurai do, if could do so samurais wouldn´t used those armours ), and saying too that lonswords are only a matter of brute force (It could be, but a blunt longsword can even cut you an arm, leg or your head). An otaku can be ignorant, but National Geographic?
Every culture have it´s champions, call them as you want, Africa, Europe and America have their weapons and fearless warriors too. To be a great warrior is not totally a weaponry or technology matter, it´s a personal matter too. (Like Janos Hunyadi, an hungarian XV century fearless knight who fught against bigger and artilled turk armies, with little more than a coup of religious fanatics and really fearsome knights)

About Mediaval African conflicts against Europe, during the fifth crusade, Crusaders took some Muslim Damietta. They were defeated becouse they were pushed by a flood and accorded with the Muslims to leave the cities taken for a safe conduct to Europe. But is not a remmarkable conflict.
In my opinion i think that if Sarracens had to fight in northen Germany or Italy, they would be defeated.(Its hard as hell to fight with armours under 40ºC in the middle of the dessert)

[Justin Lompado]

Wow; I skip a day and all this blows up. I cant even make any points now because the moment has been lost. Anyway, you guys might want to start a new thread about this last page; it has obviously moved in large part off of the original post. These types of discussions if you notice crop up here and there perdiodically, and while I can understand someone wanting to make clear and precise points on these matters remember its an online forum without any real interaction so getting heated (not making any accusations of course) is not going to help any because we cant see your emotions online. Like I said a new thread might be in order because obviously this discussion has gone beyond someone asking for information supporting a claim that Europeans had swords on par with the Japanese.

Hmm that was kinda moderator of me...

[Gene Tausk]

This thead is off topic and will be closed.

Anyone attempting to make posts on our forums regarding non-European martial arts, except in the very narrow confines of comparisons to European Renn MA in terms of documented techniques or weaponry (and this means written documentation from verifiable historical records, folks) will be banned from our forums.

Take it somewhere else.

If this is the case, why study Medieval and Renaissance martial arts at all? In the narrow sense you define above, modern European and American military sciences are clearly superior to pre-modern and early-modern European military sciences, and rather than wasting our time with longswords and so forth, we should be studying rifle marksmanship and small unit tactics, or, preferably, artillery and air support tactics and strategy.

People may have reasons other than martial effectiveness alone for studying any given martial art, European or otherwise. I see no reason to disparage those reasons in and of themselves.

For the very reason that one is proud of his culture, and wants to understand something of how it did things historically. I think it is cool as hell to learn how the Europeans fought with swords, dagger, spears, wrestling, and so forth. And even if I do not like some of the bad things about my culture, I have a right to pursue its good things.

I am confused...? Who said you didn't have such a right? What you do not have is the right to make claims of cultural superiority in a vaccum. Europeans are no more superior to Africans and Asians than the latter are to Europeans. Each of these have been part of the ebb and flow of our species collective experiences. At present, the Japanese appear to be the champs. We'll see about tomorrow. Be proud, but watch the superior stuff. When I hear that, I start smelling the gas chamber.