So what is a martial art and what is simply fighting ability

[Rod-Thornton]

Some recent discussions had me wondering if I had a really good definition of this question.

For example, no one can doubt the fighting prowess of say, the Vikings, however no one truly thinks of Viking martial arts that I am aware of.

However, culturally, there are those who have always had good fighting skills and martial abilities (I use the Vikings, because unlike, say the Egyptians, who had good armies, the Vikings had notariety for INDIVIDUAL fighting abilities).

Then, there are some folks out there like this one (http://www.naselfdefense.com/brown.htm) who think that any warlike race or society had a systemized martial arts. (Actually, if you think about it, this example is kinda funny since while this guy may be a great fighter, the Indians he cites were so "great" they all but dissappeared into the annals of American history by the frontier farmers who encountered them).

So, while fighting well makes an argument, what makes the definition for a martial art? Must it be codified? Can it be simply systematic? Must it be an individualized contribution or an aggregate one (solo vs. army).

In the book "The Culture of War" Crevald states that most animals about human sized in weight are faster, more ruthless, more agile, stronger, etc., but it was human ability to overcome these shortcomings with tools (weaponry) and the ability to work together in task-specific groups (i.e., one the bait, one the ambush, etc.) that made man superior, despite not being so physically.

So, is a martial art anything but an "art" per se, but simply rather a scientific exploration to developing those tools (weaponry), their use, and those tactics? If so, to be one, must it be reproduceable for posterity and for expanding that exploration to other members in that society (meaning recorded somehow).

The internet offers alotta opinions on this, but, like my indian martial arts example above, opinions are like, well...y'all know the rest.

Any of our scholars care to weigh in with their thoughts?

[Stacy Clifford]

Personally I distinguish "martial arts" as applying to the individual and "arts of war" applying to groups (very semantic I know). I define a martial art as a system of fighting based on underlying principles of motion (footwork, angles of attack, etc.) that would allow you to extrapolate moves that you haven't been taught based on those principles. The teaching of it is based around those core principles. If a fighting system is taught more as a potluck collection of useful tricks without a definable structure, then I would not consider it to be a martial art, just "a way of fighting," even though a lot of techniques might overlap. The structure defines the difference in my opinion.

[Corey Roberts]

I believe Napoleon once said something close to the following and this is not verbatim, "Tactics is the art of using men and machines to win battles, strategy is the art of using battles to win wars." To me, "martial arts" then is the level even below tactics, and could be defined as the science or art that individuals learn and train in personal fighting abilities. Therefore not all armies necessarily have martial arts, even though they may be effective armies. For example the soldier of the Napoleonic era was trained in group movement and close order drill and therefore was effective, but was provided with little training in individual combative skills, and therefore would not be said to possess "martial arts". Or for example; a soldier of the American Civil War, again there is a definite "military science" at the time, but the personal combative techniques and skill sets of individual soldiers in this period are practically nill. Now if we compare these groups to say societies with a dedicated warrior caste, such as Feudal and Renaissance Europe, where fighters are inculcated with a vast array of individual techniques and skills, this to me is what defines martial arts. The emphasis on the personal skills of the fighter being trained, and an in- depth and scientific system in place in that society to teach personal fighting skills is at the core of what constitutes a "Martial Art" in my opinion. I don't think then it is necessary to make a sweeping distinction between skills used in self-defense or those used in war, so long as we remain at the personal or individual level. Learning how to march or move in formation, or handle pikes in mass formations is a skill utilized at the tactical level and therefore will not qualify as "Martial Arts", whereas learning how to use your weapon and body to defeat another opponent is the essence of a martial art.

[Andy Spalding]

I feel like the troubling word is ART. It is fairly easy to identify the martial.

Many cultures had soldiers with fighting ability, this is no doubt. They had systematized fighting styles that they passed on to the uninitiated. They were in all ways martial. These soldiers were not necessarily Martial Artists.

To me, they were more akin to craftsmen. They were taught the tools and techniques necessary to preform their duty, the same way a potter is taught the wheel and how to throw a pot, or a painter the brush and paint. This only results in rote repetition of the concepts and does not create what we would regard as Art.

The Art comes into play when there are those that seek to perfect their craft. Obviously, perfection of any art is beyond our means, we can only hint at that perfection, which is what we regard as Beautiful or Sublime.

A martial artist is one that seeks to perfect his fighting ability. With out the martial artist, what we regard as martial arts, would not exist. Without someone actively seeking to become a better fighter, it would simply be a system of fighting techniques.

Without the artist, would the art exist?

[Mike Cartier]

i would say martial arts is the application of fighting skill acrued over time and married with a conceptual framework which facilitates gaining skill from applying these concepts. This often requires generations of continuous study and experimentation and experience to develop.

[Maxime Chouinard]

If we take the objective definition of art in this context, it is a specialised set of skills acquired by practice, study and/or observation. So an artisan would also practice an art (actually many artisans work are considered very important pieces of art), and any set of practical combative skills that can be developped by those means would enter the definition.

Now there are arts that are more complex than others, but that doesn't make them necessarily more martial or more of an art. Some styles today actually boast the simplicity of their systems as an asset to the practitionner (krav maga for example).

[Jay Vail]

I think it's a good idea to hammer out a common definition of MARTIAL ARTS. To often we talk about martial arts without specifically defining what we mean and rule out some martial practice because it does not fit our personal definition.

Here's one proposed definition: methods of personal combat having civilian and/or military application that are passed down from one generation of students to another through regular training.

This definition has the following elements:

1) methods of personal combat [that is, dealing with personal skills of attack and defense].
2) having civilian and/or military application [can be used in duelling or war or simple street defense].
3) passed down from one generation of students to another through regular training [are not haphazard or the inspiration of a single individual but are the product of regular practice involving others].

This would be the rock bottom. Any martial art could have other components, but it at least should have these.

[Benjamin Smith]

I think that's sound.

[Benjamin Smith]

I think that's sound.

[Gene Tausk]

Personally I distinguish "martial arts" as applying to the individual and "arts of war" applying to groups (very semantic I know). I define a martial art as a system of fighting based on underlying principles of motion (footwork, angles of attack, etc.) that would allow you to extrapolate moves that you haven't been taught based on those principles. The teaching of it is based around those core principles. If a fighting system is taught more as a potluck collection of useful tricks without a definable structure, then I would not consider it to be a martial art, just "a way of fighting," even though a lot of techniques might overlap. The structure defines the difference in my opinion.

I find this definition to be right on track. The elements, therefore, of a martial art vs. what would be labeled a "collection of fighting tricks" would be as follows:
1. The teaching of core principles of fighting
2. These core principles include, but are not limited to: timing, distance, footwork, angles of attack (for weapons), technique, attitude
3. These core principles can be applied to more than just one weapon (ie - using a longsword clearly requires a different set of distance princples than using a dagger, but the distance principle still applies)
4. These principles can be codified
5. Because they are codified, these principles can be transmitted

Makes sense?

[Maxime Chouinard]

Yes it does. Although would you say that the core principles can be taught by other means than verbal teaching, by observation or by actual practice of specific exercices?

[Stacy Clifford]

Yes it does. Although would you say that the core principles can be taught by other means than verbal teaching, by observation or by actual practice of specific exercices?

If by "other means" you mean taught in writing, I think anything that can be taught verbally and by observation can also be described in print and art with enough effort, so although I don't think the definition requires that the art was actually written down, I think it basically requires that it could be. I agree with Gene that the core principles should be unrelated to the particular weapon you're holding and be transferable from one weapon to the next in a general manner. I think it's that abstract aspect that makes it an art rather than just a tradition.

[Maxime Chouinard]

No I did not meant writting, more like transmitted through games or specific exercices.

[Randall Pleasant]

I feel like the troubling word is ART.

Below is a good article on what Art implied during the Renaissance.
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsArt.shtml

[G.MatthewWebb]

I feel like the troubling word is ART.

Below is a good article on what Art implied during the Renaissance.
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsArt.shtml

Ran,

Thanks for the link. I read it and recommend to interested scholars. It is a good starting point for understanding the term. I quote from Tom Leoni's article:

"The correct way to approach the definition of art is strictly philological. By discovering what "art" meant to the men who wrote the period treatises we also discover how to study these texts. So, let’s turn to the Vocabolario Della Crusca, the standard authority on the Italian language since 1612.

Here is the definition given:

ART: Derived from experience, it is the use of reason to tackle any matter, as is the case with the seven liberal arts and the mechanical arts. Latin ars.
Albert[i]. c. 46. Arts serve Nature, and knowledge rules them. Art comes from the Latin arcere, which means to force or constrain. Art is a finite disposition of infinite things. Put another way, art is a collection of rules all aimed at the same end. Knowledge of all things can be obtained through practice [uso], and what man knows, he knows through either art [arte] or practice [uso]. Likewise, arduous strain satiates man, while sleepless art often gives him great riches. Apply yourself to study, so that you may learn art, whose rules will help your mind as practice helps your hand: art gives, while practice has. If you join art and practice, a difficult journey will appear short. "

And "So why are our disciplines arts? Because they are a collection of rules (derived from experience) designed to achieve a repeatable result - that of hitting without getting hit. Direct experience is what allowed the masters of the past to build the self-contained blocks of the art (the rules) so that they could teach them directly to their students or pass them down in the form of treatises. "

I like the fact that he quotes from a period dictionary definition of "art". As a basis for further understanding, I am more interested in what martial arts as a term meant to the Renaissance fencers than what it means to various people living today. Once we understand what most people meant by the words "art" and "martial arts", then we can decide if it still suits our contemporary needs. I suspect there will be little to change.

G. Matthew Webb