Where Did the WMA Originated?

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I'm new to WMA and I'm curious where did they originated? Were the Greeks the ones that first started WMA. I know that martial arts probably has taken form even before written records because people fought a lot over land and precious resources, so it would be kindda silly to ask where did it originated because obviously every culture develop one form or several to combat enemies and invaders, but I'm talking about the more well known form, or at least a more thought out martial arts, like the Renaissance martial arts.

[Stacy Clifford]

The written record of formal martial arts training (that we know of) starts in Germany with I.33 around 1295 AD. Considering how sophisticated that first manual is, the concept of such training obviously goes back further than that, and was not necessarily confined to Germany since it was a church document written by monks who were probably retired soldiers. The sophistication was there in Europe to produce such training much earlier, but of course we can't prove anything that wasn't recorded in either writing or art.

[carlo arellano]

Surviving greek artwork clearly shows rather sophisticated moves.







"And as to the wrestling? Those who engage in the pankration, my boy, employ a wrestling that is hazardous; for they must by needs meet blows on the face that are not safe for the wrestler, and must clinch in struggles that one can only win by pretending to fall, and they need skill that they may choke and adversary in different ways at different times, and the same contestants are both wrestling with the ankle and twisting the opponent's arm, to say nothing of dealing a blow or leaping upon an adversary; for all these things are permissible in the pankration --- anything except biting and eye gouging. The Lacedmeamonians (Spartans) indeed, allow even these, because I suppose, they are training themselves for battle, but the contests of Elis exclude them, though they do permit choking".

-Philostratus

There is also the Roman Vegetius who describes in detail on how soldiers are to be trained:

"Further, they learned to strike by stabbing, not by cutting. For the Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it. And on that account this in particular characterizes the practices of the Romans with regard to combat. However, they are given that double-weight shield frame and foil, so that when the recruit takes up real, lighter weapons, as if freed from the heavier weight, he will fight in greater safety and faster. "

the rest of the work is here:

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/c ... a/veg1.htm

[Benjamin Smith]

To answer the question that may be behind your question I'll tell you what we know.

We know that there were substantial warrior traditions in Europe going back thousands of years. The Romans fought people all over Europe at the time of Christ, and they didn't always win. The societies they fought universally had warrior aristocracy, often equipped with sophisticated and sometimes expensive equipment. You need martial arts developed to a fairly high degree to make use of the weaponry that has survived. The arts of these peoples may not have been written down, but they almost certainly had sophisticated and effective techniques that they could use to employ their sophisticated weaponry and armor. The Celts, Scandinavians, Romans, Britons, Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Britons, Scots, Picts, Irish, Vandals, Magyars, Boyars, Welsh, Norse, and all the other peoples in Europe had warrior cultures, many of them hundreds if not thousands of years old.

Simply put when your people go to war consistently over the years, you develop arts to win them with. Among these are personal combat arts that modern people call "martial arts." They probably originated a long, long, long time ago, all over Europe. Some of them, or parts of them, may have been imported by migrating peoples, but there is no reason to think that they are not, for all intents and purposes, indigenous to Europe.

As Ewart Oakeshott once said describing archaeolgical finds: when we have a find with a confirmed date we can be almost completely certain that objects of its kind were in use some time before the particular item we have. The same would certainly be true of martial arts. We find direct literary evidence from 1295, and from the ancient Roman Republic. We find indirect historical, cultural, anthropological, ethnographic, archaeological, and artistic evidence much earlier than the direct literary evidence. Therefore, they must have existed even before those times.

Did they change over that time? Certainly. Different weapons, armors, cultures, expectations, and economies all have their effects on who, how, where, and in what ways martial arts are taught and developed. The arts we learn, the longsword, sword and buckler, etc... probably had their immediate origins in the middle ages, somewhere between 400-1100 CE, most of them probably had their most immediate roots after 900 CE. They underwent serious changes with the introduction of plate armor, the development of street fighting and dueling culture in the renaissance, and with the invention of the gun. The staff and club fighting traditions are possibly much older and would probably have had fewer changes.

I'll also tell you what there isn't. There is no evidence that they came intact from anywhere else to Europe. No evidence whatsoever that these were American, Australian, Chinese, African, Indian, Cambodian, Siamese, Japanese, or Filipino. I personally am of the opinion that most of the world's martial arts have there origins not in a common source, but in the common needs imposed by violence throughout history.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Thanks you guy for the info. It's very interesting to read about this. For some reason when people talk about martial arts they always think about the EMA. I've heard a lot of people talking about other styles like they were inferior to their own. Here in Thailand people think Muay Thai sucks compared to different types of Kung fu, karate, other type of martial arts for some reason and this was before Muay Thai really became popular. And every time when these people say something like that, this was back in the 60's and 70's , they were many matches that was fought between Muay Thai fighters and other styles and for some reason the Muay Thai fighters almost always ended up knocking them out even before the first round ended to the point humiliation and so they have never spoken about it when the went back home, but you here a lot of Thai people talking about it but hardly anywhere else outside the country until now when Muay Thai really became popular. But anyway my point is there are a lot of styles out their we don't really know about and it probably rival that of the Chinese and other Asian arts, maybe even better in some ways, and WMA may be some of them.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hello,

Just a Quick note - there is no such thing as a better or worse martial art. Every art had it's own intention, it's own cultural environment and a different need for being brought to life. What sense does it make to compare any martial art to another? There are arts which are meant to fight with rules. Others are more of a self defense systenm. Some others are meant for war, and most of the martial arts are meant for self-development or mental training anyway.
As for 'fighter' martial arts, in Asia for example, a complete different cultural context and weaponry not to be compared to the european was used. Or put it this way: IF in Asia plate armour would have been completelly developed, along with knighthood and the european feudal system, the martial art they would have been developed would look very much like the armoured WMA.

Szab

[Benjamin Smith]

Szabolcs, I would respectfully disagree. While it is true that context matters, and that specific martial arts are developed for specific contexts, and that martial arts typically won't work very well outside of their respective contexts there are objective situations and skill sets that you can judge the effectiveness of martial arts by.

What I mean is you can say that Martial Art X will work better/worse than Martial Art Y in contexts A, B, and C. Thus it is valid to compare martial arts within specific contexts. It is also possible to say that Martial Art X includes skills that are absent in other martial arts. Some martial arts are very good in many contexts. Some will work flat out better than some other martial arts in some or even all conceivable contexts.

Older medieval and renaissance martial arts were used in a very wide variety of contexts including: complex battlefields, street-fights, exhibition matches, dueling, armored combat, unarmored combat, involving a multiplicity of weapons and weapon combinations. Later smallsword fighting was designed for dueling almost exclusively and had documented deficiencies in other contexts. As European fencing moved into the realm of sport it lost many important skills until it got to the point that it should no longer be considered a martial art.

A good martial art should teach striking, kicking, clinching, grappling, throws, groundwork, knife/dagger fighting, fighting with larger weapons such as swords, clubs, guns with bayonets, pole-arms, improvised weapons, and thrown weapons, and have the capability to deal with body armor, and must do so in an integrated way that allows a fighter to use all of those skills as the context and opportunities direct. Such were the martial arts practiced in the Renaissance knightly and self-defense traditions until very late in the Renaissance when they began to be supplanted by firearms. The only contexts in which the older arts are deficient include firearms at range, and the only way to deal with that is by having a firearm, similar ranged weapon, or rare kinds of body armor yourself.

Considering the above paragraphs, I think it's fair to say that the martial arts of the renaissance were generally superior to most modern martial arts. Some modern martial arts may excel somewhat in the unarmed skill sets, but they never seem to cover all of above in the way renaissance martial arts did, and I've never seen even one that deals as well as the renaissance ones in armed combat. The sophistication in each of the above areas is the reason we're still struggling to reconstruct and interpret their teachings from ancient manuals.