How Effective is It?

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Hi, I'm relatively new to the world martila art. Right now I'm interested in European fencing and fighting techniques. I like to see how different cultures fight and how the use of weapons evolve in different parts of the world. Maybe you guys can answer some of my questions. How effective is the Renaissance and medieval fighting styles? I know some techniques are superior to others. I'm from Thailand and I know for a fact that before king Narasuen learn how to fight from the Burmese, Thai fencing and fighting techniques were inferior to the Burmese after defeat after defeat. After he was sent to live in Burma, the king of Burma Buyanaung instructed that he be taught how the Burmese fight and the rest is history. King Narasuen began teaching what he knew to his army and thus improved the Thai army. His style is still being practice today. Has there been a dual between the renaissance and medieval martial art against other styles. I particularily like the way how they fight with the rapier and like to see a dual between it and other style.

[Jeffrey Hull]

One may well ask of the Thai, the Japanese and the Chinese:
Just how effective are your arts of fighting?

So in considering answer to your question, one may ask questions:

What is it you are really asking?

Are modern fencers who study, for example, the Kunst des Fechtens of the late Medieval and early Renaissance Germans -- which includes wrestling, spear, staff, dagger, sword & buckler and longsword -- willing & able to use their martial arts to defend themselves?

Yes, they are and they do.

Are such langes schwert fencers willing to have collegial sparring matches with those who practice krabi or katana or jian and fare well against them?

Yes, they are and they do.

But most importantly, did Kunst des Fechtens serve its fencers well in the past, did it avail them?

Yes, that is why they learned and evolved it for centuries. It gave them the techniques & tactics needed to victoriously wield weapons in dueling and warfare. It was their "art of fighting", their "martial arts".

Historically, was there ever a duel between a German ritter and a Japanese samurai?

I know of no such unlikely thing ever happening in past history.
If you are interested in a controversial yet very informed estimation of such a combat, between European swordsman and Japanese swordsman, then you may want to read this:

http://thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

And perhaps also this, about rapier fencer versus katana fencer:

http://thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

I hope that answers your question in some reasonable manner.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi, I'm relatively new to the world martila art. Right now I'm interested in European fencing and fighting techniques. I like to see how different cultures fight and how the use of weapons evolve in different parts of the world. Maybe you guys can answer some of my questions. How effective is the Renaissance and medieval fighting styles? I know some techniques are superior to others. I'm from Thailand and I know for a fact that before king Narasuen learn how to fight from the Burmese, Thai fencing and fighting techniques were inferior to the Burmese after defeat after defeat. After he was sent to live in Burma, the king of Burma Buyanaung instructed that he be taught how the Burmese fight and the rest is history. King Narasuen began teaching what he knew to his army and thus improved the Thai army. His style is still being practice today. Has there been a dual between the renaissance and medieval martial art against other styles. I particularily like the way how they fight with the rapier and like to see a dual between it and other style.

I have met in person perhaps 5-6 of what I consider very high level martial artists.... and they were in different arts in most cases. It is the fighter, not the art, even if some arts have compartive disadvantages.

[Gene Tausk]

Hi, I'm relatively new to the world martila art. Right now I'm interested in European fencing and fighting techniques. I like to see how different cultures fight and how the use of weapons evolve in different parts of the world. Maybe you guys can answer some of my questions. How effective is the Renaissance and medieval fighting styles? I know some techniques are superior to others. I'm from Thailand and I know for a fact that before king Narasuen learn how to fight from the Burmese, Thai fencing and fighting techniques were inferior to the Burmese after defeat after defeat. After he was sent to live in Burma, the king of Burma Buyanaung instructed that he be taught how the Burmese fight and the rest is history. King Narasuen began teaching what he knew to his army and thus improved the Thai army. His style is still being practice today. Has there been a dual between the renaissance and medieval martial art against other styles. I particularily like the way how they fight with the rapier and like to see a dual between it and other style.

I am certainly no expert in either Burmese or Thai history by any stretch of the imagination, but I am kind of curious as to why the Burmese would teach the Thailanders how to fight? It is sort of like giving your enemy a weapon to use against you which does not make a whole lot of sense if you want to keep your state from being invaded and if you want to continue to win battles. Just a thought. If you have an answer, please PM me as this is off-topic.

Answering your question of "how effective were (are) Renaissance and Medieval fighting systems?" - well, since you are on a website that features and explores these systems, you can imagine we think very highly of them. You need to narrow your question somewhat before it can be answered.

[John_Clements]

Well…Medieval and Renaissance fighting men fought across all of Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, into the Middle East and the New World, and around to the Indian Ocean and Pacific. They brought their arms and armor and methods of close combat across terrains and geographies as diverse as the arctic wastes of Scandinavia, mountains of the Alps, to the deep forests of Germany, the flat plains of the East, to the dry hills of Spain, the moors of Scotland, and the bogs and beaches in between, all the while specializing in sieges and naval battle in an age of more and more gunpowder.

I can think their success speaks for itself and I know of no other peoples who experienced anything comparable with their martial culture.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

One may well ask of the Thai, the Japanese and the Chinese:
Just how effective are your arts of fighting?

Well, I wouldn't know how effective Japanese and Chinese art because I'm not Japanese or Chinese. But I do know that the Thai have fought the Japanese and Chinese in the ring before and the were annialated in the ring. This just show how effective it is. It's totally different art than the Chinese and Japanese. I believe modern MMA incorporated Thai boxing into their fighting system along with Brazilian juijitsu. And I believe Thai and Burmese boxing did incorporate western boxing into its fighting system, althought in Burmese and Thai boxing they use a lot of elbow smash which is quite effective at bringing down your enemies like elbow striking down on the top of the head inorder to try to crack your opponent skull. And do have things like pulling out your enemies' eyes which is quite gruesome. So Burmese and Thai boxing does have western influence. I think werstern boxing is very effective.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Hi, I'm relatively new to the world martila art. Right now I'm interested in European fencing and fighting techniques. I like to see how different cultures fight and how the use of weapons evolve in different parts of the world. Maybe you guys can answer some of my questions. How effective is the Renaissance and medieval fighting styles? I know some techniques are superior to others. I'm from Thailand and I know for a fact that before king Narasuen learn how to fight from the Burmese, Thai fencing and fighting techniques were inferior to the Burmese after defeat after defeat. After he was sent to live in Burma, the king of Burma Buyanaung instructed that he be taught how the Burmese fight and the rest is history. King Narasuen began teaching what he knew to his army and thus improved the Thai army. His style is still being practice today. Has there been a dual between the renaissance and medieval martial art against other styles. I particularily like the way how they fight with the rapier and like to see a dual between it and other style.

I am certainly no expert in either Burmese or Thai history by any stretch of the imagination, but I am kind of curious as to why the Burmese would teach the Thailanders how to fight? It is sort of like giving your enemy a weapon to use against you which does not make a whole lot of sense if you want to keep your state from being invaded and if you want to continue to win battles. Just a thought. If you have an answer, please PM me as this is off-topic.

Answering your question of "how effective were (are) Renaissance and Medieval fighting systems?" - well, since you are on a website that features and explores these systems, you can imagine we think very highly of them. You need to narrow your question somewhat before it can be answered.

I was curious about how the rapier would match up against a guy using two swords in either Thailand or China. How would you use the rapier against a guy who is carrying big sword? It looks to be a weapon for stapping only, isn't it, and wouldn't it be difficult to block a heavier weapons like a spear or big sword since the blade is thin?

[Jaron Bernstein]

The rapier is very effective against an unarmored opponent in single combat. Once again, it does come down to the better fighter, but a good rapier fighter can more than hold their own against someone with a blade from an AMA style of similar or lesser skill.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Well, I wouldn't know how effective Japanese and Chinese art because I'm not Japanese or Chinese. But I do know that the Thai have fought the Japanese and Chinese in the ring before and the were annialated in the ring. This just show how effective it is. It's totally different art than the Chinese and Japanese. I believe modern MMA incorporated Thai boxing into their fighting system along with Brazilian juijitsu. And I believe Thai and Burmese boxing did incorporate western boxing into its fighting system, althought in Burmese and Thai boxing they use a lot of elbow smash which is quite effective at bringing down your enemies like elbow striking down on the top of the head inorder to try to crack your opponent skull. And do have things like pulling out your enemies' eyes which is quite gruesome. So Burmese and Thai boxing does have western influence. I think werstern boxing is very effective.

I am sure that practitioners of karate or jujitsu and kung fu may assert the reverse. Perhaps they would offer competing tales of annihlation in their favour.

So is that the standard : if the modern gladiatorial sport MMA incorporates Thai and BJJ and boxing etc., then any and all of those must be part of the "ultimate" in fighting, usable and effective in each and every self-defence situation?

Do you differentiate between contexts of various fights?

Have you made comparative survey of techniques among multiple styles, or even amongst two, seeking equivalents and differences?

Would you understand if I told you that tomoe nage is the same as bubenwurf? Why should it matter that the one is Japanese and the other German, if each is really the same technique, whereby you may deliver at least 3000 pounds-force against the foe?

The foe gets hurt by the same effective technique, whether the name of the art be jujitsu or ringen.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I am sure that practitioners of karate or jujitsu and kung fu may assert the reverse. Perhaps they would offer competing tales of annihlation in their favour.

I'm surprised noone has ever heard of Thai boxing that has fought against Kungfu, juijitsu and karate in the ring. This was done way back. I don't remeber the specific date, but I do the Chinese and Japanese art didn't fair well at all against Thai boxing. They didn't even make it past the first round and were completely knocked out in just a few minutes. I can't remember the karate and kungfu masters that were defeated, but I hear they are still alive today.

So is that the standard : if the modern gladiatorial sport MMA incorporates Thai and BJJ and boxing etc., then any and all of those must be part of the "ultimate" in fighting, usable and effective in each and every self-defence situation?

Yes, from what I hear karate and kungfu didn't fair so well in matches against BJJ and Thai boxing in the ring.

Do you differentiate between contexts of various fights?

Have you made comparative survey of techniques among multiple styles, or even amongst two, seeking equivalents and differences?

Would you understand if I told you that tomoe nage is the same as bubenwurf? Why should it matter that the one is Japanese and the other German, if each is really the same technique, whereby you may deliver at least 3000 pounds-force against the foe?

The foe gets hurt by the same effective technique, whether the name of the art be jujitsu or ringen.

Yes, I believe there are disadvantages in certain art when compared to others, but sometimes the better fighter does prevail. Like for example, the original Siamese fighting skill was inferior to King Narasuen style when match up. He learned them from the Burmese.

[Jeffrey Hull]

If you want to brag about competition with other Asian martial arts, then you may find manifold other forums at which to do so. You can partake of the pointless arguments of "My kung fu is better than you kung fu" all that you like -- at those other forums.

Here we discuss the martial arts of Renaissance Europe. Said martial arts were not about whose "style" oudoes everybody else's style in sporting competition, in some damned gladiatorial cage-fight for cheering crowds. Such were and are -- if practiced correctly in these our modern times as we endeavour to resurrect them -- meant to avail the fighter in dueling or warfare, to help him survive mortal combat and self-defence crisis.

If you think your "art of the eight-limbs" -- striking with fist, elbows, shins & knees -- would always or even nominally avail you in the world of the German knight, then think again. Ringen, thus wrestling, is what they did because that is what worked in the context of their world. Not karate, not muay thai, not wing chun, not boxing -- but wrestling. Their ringen was meant for armoured combat with relevancy to unarmoured self-defence. It had its share of strikes, especially for unarmoured street situations, but was primarily a grappling art. It was meant to maim, cripple and kill the foe -- not merely make him submit, or even merely knock him out -- but to destroy him. Hence, if one insists upon a comparison, German ringen was most equivalent to traditional, old-school Japanese jujitsu. If one searches for modern equivalents to its tactical mindset, then I would suggest the most similar would be MACP, MCMAP, krav maga.

This ringen was integrated with armed combat. Its dagger-fighting, for example, was meant to allow the fechter to deal with either the knight in armour or the thug on the street with virtually the same moves.

Since the approval of nobility seems so important to you, then you should know that no less a personage than Maximilian I (1459-1519), the lord high Kaiser of the Germans, was a notable practitioner and advocate of ringen. He famously patronised his friend, the great graphic artist Albrecht Duerer, to produce a fechtbuch featuring 120 plays of self-defensive wrestling.

You may decide whether or not such is "effective". I am sure that it availed the German ritter well. It can avail and has availed me and my fellows in situations of self-defence today.

[Stacy Clifford]

And I believe Thai and Burmese boxing did incorporate western boxing into its fighting system, althought in Burmese and Thai boxing they use a lot of elbow smash which is quite effective at bringing down your enemies like elbow striking down on the top of the head inorder to try to crack your opponent skull. And do have things like pulling out your enemies' eyes which is quite gruesome. So Burmese and Thai boxing does have western influence. I think werstern boxing is very effective.

A few months ago Gene Tausk taught a very interesting (and painful) class down here on pre-Queensbury rules boxing, the old bare knuckle style. Elbow smashes, hammer fists and several wrestling moves were commonly allowed at one time. Modern boxing is effective, yes, but it used to be much nastier.

[Jay Vail]

And I believe Thai and Burmese boxing did incorporate western boxing into its fighting system, althought in Burmese and Thai boxing they use a lot of elbow smash which is quite effective at bringing down your enemies like elbow striking down on the top of the head inorder to try to crack your opponent skull. And do have things like pulling out your enemies' eyes which is quite gruesome. So Burmese and Thai boxing does have western influence. I think werstern boxing is very effective.

A few months ago Gene Tausk taught a very interesting (and painful) class down here on pre-Queensbury rules boxing, the old bare knuckle style. Elbow smashes, hammer fists and several wrestling moves were commonly allowed at one time. Modern boxing is effective, yes, but it used to be much nastier.

Pre-Marqui boxing = pankration = MMA = sanshou = muay thai.

There are differences between all these arts (some quite substantial), but there are also massive similarities. That should be no surprise.

Both kungfu and muay thai have incorporated western boxing hands because of its proven effectiveness both in the ring and on the street. This is not to say that boxing hands replaces other techniques in either system, but rather those methods are brought in and often heavily relied upon. This development is well documented in the literature describing recent trends in both arts.

For the effectiveness of basic boxing hands in the street see:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

[Steve Fitch]

And I believe Thai and Burmese boxing did incorporate western boxing into its fighting system, althought in Burmese and Thai boxing they use a lot of elbow smash which is quite effective at bringing down your enemies like elbow striking down on the top of the head inorder to try to crack your opponent skull. And do have things like pulling out your enemies' eyes which is quite gruesome. So Burmese and Thai boxing does have western influence. I think werstern boxing is very effective.

A few months ago Gene Tausk taught a very interesting (and painful) class down here on pre-Queensbury rules boxing, the old bare knuckle style. Elbow smashes, hammer fists and several wrestling moves were commonly allowed at one time. Modern boxing is effective, yes, but it used to be much nastier.

Pre-Marqui boxing = pankration = MMA = sanshou = muay thai.

There are differences between all these arts (some quite substantial), but there are also massive similarities. That should be no surprise.

Both kungfu and muay thai have incorporated western boxing hands because of its proven effectiveness both in the ring and on the street. This is not to say that boxing hands replaces other techniques in either system, but rather those methods are brought in and often heavily relied upon. This development is well documented in the literature describing recent trends in both arts.

For the effectiveness of basic boxing hands in the street see:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

I agree with this. I have practiced and teach Muay Thai for the past 10 years, and believe it to be the most effective stand up fighting art (weaponless)

[Steve Fitch]

Jay

I watched the vid http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

I love this guy!! We sometimes play a game in my Thai class at the end called "The Shark Tank". One guy in the middle and the rest attack him (safely). The trick is to move to keep everyone in a line having only one attacker facing you. Hit the front person, and as the other attackers move to meet you move an put them in a line again...*repeat*