Posts
(newest first)
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Martial Arts Evolution
How do martial arts evolve?
Its interesting to think that a lot of Western martial arts, like fencing, Irish StickFighting (Bata - hence "I'm gonna Bata/Batter you" perhaps?), quarter staff etc, have evolved from the the same essential premise that all martial arts do - from battle and warfare, and to some extent hunting, and its interesting to see how they have evolved.
All major battles in European history show us that there are a range of different combatants and skills therefore, from the mounted heavy cavalry to the light footsoldier, each group requiring different skills and armament.
The dark age and middle age heavy weapons like Claymores and huge broadswords are more suited to the north europeans who are generally larger and taller than their eastern counterparts, so weaponry is tailored to this, hence the smaller swords of the east of the same period.
However, you see many similarities as warfare progresses, for example, horseback cavalry post middle ages were served with thinner, lighter swords, not entirely dissimilar to the tachi and katana of the same Japanese Edo period timeframe.
Weaponry is also very much dictated by technology, as the old bronze swords of Roman times show, compared with the advanced forged, folded steel of later ages, hence martial artists evolve their fighting styles to suit their weaponry.
Imagine a Roman foot soldier is faced with a gladiatori, his technique will be quickly dispatched against the specialised one-on-one technique of the gladiator, but the same gladiatori faced with a couple of bronze sword wielding foot soldiers might have had more trouble besides the stength in numbers, but the method employed by the foot soldiers is most effective in groups, not individuals. Might not be entirely true, as many gladiatori were ex soldiers, but I'm using it as an illustration of how martial arts styles differed with the weapons and general application.
Another interesting note, almost all cultures have some form of stick fighting, because one supposes you can usually find a stick where ever you are, be it indonesia (Kali escrima), european (Bata, Quarterstaff), etc, they might not all have names, but even a chimp can pick up a stick and use it for battle, so I think stick fighting is the most base weapons art you can deliver.
Anyway, the evolution of arts seems to be based on the function and application, and martial arts seem to be born from warfare, generally specific to the region because of peculiarities of the area's warfare, an epee or foil to poke into the vulnerable points on a suit of armour, huge swords to smash through heavy armour, long curved swords for horseback fighting, rice flails and bamboo spears as used by the peasants etc.
Is hand to hand combat also born of warfare?
No doubt, but perhaps more likely born of self defence, or a last resort alternative. If you had a stick in your hands facing multiple enemies, its more likely that you would want to retain that stick than drop it and take them on open handed. If you go to attack someone with a sword, you are much less likely to attempt it without a weapon of your own,its just common sense. But you'll want some form of combat if you are unarmed, hence the birth of open hand martial arts? Maybe
Anyway, heres an interesting site: http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Its interesting to think that a lot of Western martial arts, like fencing, Irish StickFighting (Bata - hence "I'm gonna Bata/Batter you" perhaps?), quarter staff etc, have evolved from the the same essential premise that all martial arts do - from battle and warfare, and to some extent hunting, and its interesting to see how they have evolved.
All major battles in European history show us that there are a range of different combatants and skills therefore, from the mounted heavy cavalry to the light footsoldier, each group requiring different skills and armament.
The dark age and middle age heavy weapons like Claymores and huge broadswords are more suited to the north europeans who are generally larger and taller than their eastern counterparts, so weaponry is tailored to this, hence the smaller swords of the east of the same period.
However, you see many similarities as warfare progresses, for example, horseback cavalry post middle ages were served with thinner, lighter swords, not entirely dissimilar to the tachi and katana of the same Japanese Edo period timeframe.
Weaponry is also very much dictated by technology, as the old bronze swords of Roman times show, compared with the advanced forged, folded steel of later ages, hence martial artists evolve their fighting styles to suit their weaponry.
Imagine a Roman foot soldier is faced with a gladiatori, his technique will be quickly dispatched against the specialised one-on-one technique of the gladiator, but the same gladiatori faced with a couple of bronze sword wielding foot soldiers might have had more trouble besides the stength in numbers, but the method employed by the foot soldiers is most effective in groups, not individuals. Might not be entirely true, as many gladiatori were ex soldiers, but I'm using it as an illustration of how martial arts styles differed with the weapons and general application.
Another interesting note, almost all cultures have some form of stick fighting, because one supposes you can usually find a stick where ever you are, be it indonesia (Kali escrima), european (Bata, Quarterstaff), etc, they might not all have names, but even a chimp can pick up a stick and use it for battle, so I think stick fighting is the most base weapons art you can deliver.
Anyway, the evolution of arts seems to be based on the function and application, and martial arts seem to be born from warfare, generally specific to the region because of peculiarities of the area's warfare, an epee or foil to poke into the vulnerable points on a suit of armour, huge swords to smash through heavy armour, long curved swords for horseback fighting, rice flails and bamboo spears as used by the peasants etc.
Is hand to hand combat also born of warfare?
No doubt, but perhaps more likely born of self defence, or a last resort alternative. If you had a stick in your hands facing multiple enemies, its more likely that you would want to retain that stick than drop it and take them on open handed. If you go to attack someone with a sword, you are much less likely to attempt it without a weapon of your own,its just common sense. But you'll want some form of combat if you are unarmed, hence the birth of open hand martial arts? Maybe
Anyway, heres an interesting site: http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/index.htm
