Human style

[kempocat]

I have spent a great deal of time over the years learning to fight like various animals
.
but I am sure as we were all growing up that we were all told its best to be our selfs it is what we are best at
.
well as Mom's teachings have a train wreck inside my head with martial teachings I started to ponder HOW DO HUMAN'S FIGHT? is fighting a natural instinct in us or is it learned
.
how did the first people capture and kill prey?
I understand this is a very difficult question seeing as how this took place before recorded history
.
I think I would be a natural at fighting like a human if I only knew how?
.
.
how's this for my first thread?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I suppose we should not get too carried away into the past and stick with anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens). How did they fight? Let's see - no claws, no big teeth, no armour, not of huge size, basically not a lot of natural weaponry, unlike a tiger or an elephant. What do we have? A huge brain which is capable of developing solutions to complex problems.

To me, copying the way other creatures fight and developing weapons is the way a human fights. Weapons in particular. A lion has sharp teeth, a human gets a stick and sharpens one end, now he has a tooth of some dangerousness as well. Adapting is the human way.

An interesting point, however. Some years ago a study was conducted that found that human brains were very well adapted to hitting fast moving things with projectiles. It suggests to me that long ago humans developed a excellent ability to hunt small flying things, probably birds, with thrownrocks and sticks. Maybe that is the human way of fighting, throwning things. It might also explain why we have so many bat and ball games.

 

[kempocat]

I enjoyed your light hearted responce
I agree with everything you have said
we are pound for pound weaker than animals and slower than most animals with a few notable exceptions like a sloth or slug we are not great swimers or climbers we dont blend in very well
.
but we have big brains that allow us out think animals if we can manage to keep our composure and as you stated we can make tools or weapons or throw things as monkeys do
.
do I dare suggest that the monkey or primate is our
closest relative and we would adapt to fighting like a monkey
.
if humans are superior to animals why cant we make our own system of fighting?
.
do humans have any natural instincts other than how to reproduce

 

[tellner]

Long distance running, throwing things, manual dexterity and fine control of the lips and tongue are physical skills at which we excel. The last one has very limited fighting application :wink:

We have tiny little teeth, more like a baby ape's milk teeth than anything else. We are weak for our size. Our skin is tender and unprotected. We don't have claws. But listen to the wisdom of T. H. White in his classic book The Once and Future King:

When God had manufactured all the oggs out of which the fishes and the serpents and the birds and the mammals and even the duck-billed platypus would eventually emerge, he called the embryos before Him, and saw that they were good

"Perhaps I ought to explain," added the badger, lowering his papers nervously and looking at Wart over the top of them, "that all embryos look very much the same. They are what you are before you are born - and, whether you are going to be a tadpole or a peacock or a cameleopard or a man, when you are an embryo you just look like a peculiarly repulsive and helpless human being. I continue as follows:

"The embryos stood in front of God, with their feeble hands clasped politely over their stomachs and their heavy heads hanging down respectuflly, and God addressed them.

"He said: 'Now, you embryos, here you are, all looking exactly the same, and We are going to give you the choice of what you want to be. When you grow up you will get bigger anyway, but We are pleased to grant you another gift as well. You may alter any parts of yourself into any which you think would be uesful to you in later life.

For instance, at the moment you cannot dig. Anybody who would like to turn his hands into a pair of spades or garden forks is allowed to do so. Or, to put it another way, at present you can only use your mouth for eating. Anybody who would like to use his mouth as an offensive weapons can change it by asking, and be a corkindrill or a sabre-toothed tiger. Now then, step up and choose your tools, but remember that what you choose you will grow into, and will have to stick to.'

"All the embryos thought the matter over politely, and then, one by one, they stepped up before the eternal thrown. They were allowed two or three specializations, so that some chose to use their arms as flying machines and their mouths as weapons, or crackers, or drillers, or spoons, while others selected to use their bodies as boats and their hands as oars. We badgers thought very hard and decided to ask three boons. We wanted to change our skins for shields, our mouths for weapons, and our arms for garden forks. These boons were granted. Everybody specialized in one way or another, and some of us in very queer ones. For instance, one of the desert lizards decided to swap his whole body for blotting paper, and one of the toads who lived in the drouthy antipodes decided simply to be a water-bottle.

"The asking and granting took up two long days - they were the fifth and sixth, so far as I remember - and at the very end of the sixth day, just before it was time to knock off for Sunday, they had got through all the little embryos except one. This embryo was Man.

"'Well, Our little man' said God. 'You have waited till the last, and slept on your decision, and We are sure you have been thinking hard all the time. What can We do for you?'

"'Please God' said the embryo, 'I think that You made me in the shape which I now have for reasons best known to Yourselves, and that it would be rude to change. If I am to have any choice I will stay as I am. I will not alter any of the parts which You gave me, for other and doubtless inferior tools, and I will stay a defenceless embryo all my life, doing my best to make myself a few feeble implements out of the wood, iron and the other materials which You have seen fit to put before me. If I want a boat, I will try to construct it out of trees, and if I want to fly, I will put together a chariot to do it for me. Probably I have been very silly in refusing to take advantage of Your kind offer, but I have done my very best to think it over carefully, and now hope that the feeble decision of this small innocent will find favour with Yourselves.'

"'Well done' exclaimed the Creator in delighted tones. 'Here, all you embryos, come here with your beaks and whatnots to look upon Our first Man. He is the only one who has guessed Our riddle, out of all of you, and We have great pleasure in conferring upon him the Order of Dominion over the Fowls of the Air, and the Beasts of the Earth and the fishes of the Sea. Now let the rest of you get along, and love and multiply, for it is time to knock off for the week-end. As for you, Man, you will be a naked tool all your life, though a user of tools. You will look like an embryo till they bury you, but all the others will be embryos before your might. Eternally undeveloped, you will always remain potential in Our image, able to see some of Our sorrows and to feel some of Our joys. We are partly sorry for you, Man, but partly hopeful. Run along then, and do your best. And listen, Man, before you go.'

"'Well?' asked Adam, turning back from his dismissal.

"'We were only going to say' said God shyly, twisting Their hands together. 'Well, We were just going to say, God bless you.' "

Oh, fighting is instinctive just like mating and eating and walking. And we are naturally wrestlers and use our hands like hammers and bite and grab and tear.

But we're pretty pathetic at it. When we fight for real, we use our opposable thumbs to make and hold tools, our one great Gift.

My first Silat teacher's teacher puts it a little differently. "I don't eat with my fingers. Why would I fight with them?"

 

[Blindside]

how did the first people capture and kill prey?
I understand this is a very difficult question seeing as how this took place before recorded history
.
I think I would be a natural at fighting like a human if I only knew how?
.
.
how's this for my first thread?

Nice first post.

My response, "be a tool user." Unarmed is for the people unfortunate enough not to have tools.

Lamont

 

[Adept]

I have spent a great deal of time over the years learning to fight like various animals

Eh, thats a little misleading.

You don't often grab people around the shoulders with your talons, roll onton your back, and kick at their unprotected underbelly with your strong hind legs do you? Nor do you leap onto their back and try to bite them on the neck with your fangs. Nor do you wait in the water, and leap out to plant your jaws around their face as they lean in for a drink. And I'm pretty sure you don't fly around and stab at them with your long sharp beak!

 

[Kacey]

The greatest strength of the human animal is adaptability, the ability to perform a wide variety of tasks. Many animals, as in the quote tellner posted, have 1, or 2, or in some cases even 3 specialities, human beings are specializing generalists - not, in general, the fastest, strongest, best armed, etc. - but able to perform a much wider variety of tasks than any other creature.

 

[tellner]

You don't often grab people around the shoulders with your talons, roll onton your back, and kick at their unprotected underbelly with your strong hind legs do you? Nor do you leap onto their back and try to bite them on the neck with your fangs. Nor do you wait in the water, and leap out to plant your jaws around their face as they lean in for a drink. And I'm pretty sure you don't fly around and stab at them with your long sharp beak!

But, but doesn't everyone fight that way?

 

[Shotochem]

Humans if given a choice almost always fight better at a distance. Every other creature on this earth has to get up close and personal to kill.

We first had rocks and spears.

We succeeded in hunting because of the ability to hit our prey without the ability of it to hit back. That is how humans fight.

Then came the natural progression to the bow and arrow, crossbow, guns, cannons and all the way to our modern weapontry.

It's a shame we no longer kill just for food.

We have advanced to killing to settle petty disputes and the elimination of our fellow man.

So much for progress.........

-Marc-

 

[tellner]

It's a shame we no longer kill just for food.

We have advanced to killing to settle petty disputes and the elimination of our fellow man.

We've been fighting and killing each other for a terribly long time. If you look at our closest relatives they get in pretty serious fights. Chimps send out war parties. Male gorillas kill each other over harems and kill all the babies when they take over a troop.

Bonobos are a different story. But this is about martial arts, not marital arts

 

[Andrew Green]

Humans have one great weapon, our hands and ability to use weapons.

But if you want a idea on how humans fight naturally, without the aide of weapons, my guess would be we are naturally wrestlers. We lack any really good striking, slashing or tearing tools. Boxers tape and glove there hands for a reason, they break. But our strength is still in our ability to grab, control and then attack.

But when it comes to real fighting, not sport or play fighting, humans use weapons. Either manufactured ones (swords, guns, tanks, missiles, etc) or improvised ones.

 

[JBrainard]

Every other creature on this earth has to get up close and personal to kill.

You forgot about spitting cobras.

 

[shesulsa]

Bonobos are a different story. But this is about martial arts, not marital arts

Bonobos make love, not war, and rarely fight. I know you know this, I just thought I'd toss in.

Shotochem's post is very insightful. What is your first instinct when attacked? From what I see, just about everyone seeks distance; it's the first and most repeated thing we have to show people when working techniques. "We don't fight by Federal Express or UPS overnight - you have to get within range."

 

[thardey]

If I found myself in a primitive environment (read: lost in the woods). The first thing I want is a good, mid-sized knife (of wood, stone, bone, or steel). If I have to fight, I'll tie that knife to a stick. From there, I can either stab, swing, or throw it. With a long enough spear, I can defend against almost any animal, and with practice, I can kill many smaller ones. I can even fish with it.

That's why I always make sure I have a knife, and some chord if I drive out of the city limits.

Our other main primitive tool is the use and control of fire.

What are swords, other than long knives? Or spears with metal, sharpened shafts?

What are arrows, but small spears thrown with bows? What are bullets, but highly specialized arrows? Same for missiles -- large spears with fire.

Humans fight with knives and spears.

 

[tellner]

Bonobos make love, not war, and rarely fight. I know you know this, I just thought I'd toss in.

See my comment in the "What I learned about martial arts from animals thread" They really are a lot nicer than us.

Shotochem's post is very insightful. What is your first instinct when attacked? From what I see, just about everyone seeks distance; it's the first and most repeated thing we have to show people when working techniques. "We don't fight by Federal Express or UPS overnight - you have to get within range."

In self defense classes the hardest and perhaps the most important part is to retrain the women to react to a close approach with aggression rather than backing down.

 

[Steel Tiger]

We've been fighting and killing each other for a terribly long time. If you look at our closest relatives they get in pretty serious fights. Chimps send out war parties. Male gorillas kill each other over harems and kill all the babies when they take over a troop.

Bonobos are a different story. But this is about martial arts, not marital arts

Studying the combative nature of primates has presented some very interesting results over the years.

Gorillas are pretty peaceful most of the time, but they will beat each other into oblivion given the right stimulus (girls usually).

The excessively warlike behaviour that Jane Goodall noted among the chimps at Gombi appears to have had a human genesis. The introduction of a coveted, but limited, resource (bananas) and the shrinking of the park as a result of encroaching farmland drove the chimps to conflict. Once in the situation they didn't mess about. Gang attacks, ambushes, mutilation, and a level of violence that was staggering to behold.

Interestingly, in chimp communities in the Congo, where there are no geographical pressures, there is almost no conflict. The demon ape is not an endemic beast, he only comes out when he is forced to it appears.

Recent studies have suggested that we have decended from a chimp-like creature that fell somewhere between Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus (Bonobo).

What does all this mean for how we used to fight? I don't know, but if current human reactions to pressures are any indication, the demon ape is in there just waiting to mess somebody up, and now we really know how to do it.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Humans if given a choice almost always fight better at a distance. Every other creature on this earth has to get up close and personal to kill.

We first had rocks and spears.

We succeeded in hunting because of the ability to hit our prey without the ability of it to hit back. That is how humans fight.

Then came the natural progression to the bow and arrow, crossbow, guns, cannons and all the way to our modern weapontry.

It's a shame we no longer kill just for food.

We have advanced to killing to settle petty disputes and the elimination of our fellow man.

So much for progress.........

-Marc-

A very good point. As I said earlier, our brains seem to be particularly well developed for calculating the intersection of two fast moving objects with only visual input (no sonar or echo location for us). In other words hitting moving targets with thrown or projected objects. Looks like the hardwiring is still working. Our most destructive developments are not melee weapons but ranged weapons. Its what we know how to do better than anything else on the planet

 

[Flying Crane]

Humans if given a choice almost always fight better at a distance. -Marc-

I actually think this is not true. To a certain point, it may be, but beyond that it becomes less so.

take a look at news reports of political hot zones where armed conflict has been ongoing. Often, we see reports of things like hours of artillery shelling of a town, and perhaps a couple dozen people killed.

Now do some reading of earlier human warfare, such as accounts of Alexander the Great. In his battles, if the reports are to be believed, thousands of people would die in a single afternoon. These reports certainly may be exaggerated, but I think there is probably enough truth in them to be accurate enough. His battles were done at bow range and hand-to-hand with swords and spears and the like.

Seems to me that humans still kill best at a relatively close range.

Of course the grand ultimate is the nuclear warhead that wreaks absolute destruction over a large area and kills the enemy indescrimitely: "All of them. and all their cats and all their dogs and all their sheep and all their cattle. All of them, gone for good. And all ya gotta do is sit back thousands of miles away and push a little button..." (kudos to whoever knows what movie that little bit came from).

 

[Blindside]

I actually think this is not true. To a certain point, it may be, but beyond that it becomes less so.

take a look at news reports of political hot zones where armed conflict has been ongoing. Often, we see reports of things like hours of artillery shelling of a town, and perhaps a couple dozen people killed.

Now do some reading of earlier human warfare, such as accounts of Alexander the Great. In his battles, if the reports are to be believed, thousands of people would die in a single afternoon. These reports certainly may be exaggerated, but I think there is probably enough truth in them to be accurate enough. His battles were done at bow range and hand-to-hand with swords and spears and the like.

If you haven't already, I would suggest reading "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, he argues very persuasively exactly the opposite, that artillery is responsible for most of the deaths in Napoleonic era warfare to the present, and that increase in effectiveness is due to psychological distance from the advesary. That humans, when given a choice not to, generally don't kill the other guy, even if it puts them in harms way. In gunpowder warfare, you could load and pretend to shoot, or shoot over the other guy's head, or just load and hand off your gun to someone who is willing to shoot the opponent. This actually supports your argument, but not with artillery vs. personal firearms, but personal firearms vs. hand to hand. Hand to hand (bayonet charge etc) leaves no choice to a person to do or die.

Its really a fascinating book.

Lamont

 

[Flying Crane]

If you haven't already, I would suggest reading "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, he argues very persuasively exactly the opposite, that artillery is responsible for most of the deaths in Napoleonic era warfare to the present, and that increase in effectiveness is due to psychological distance from the advesary. That humans, when given a choice not to, generally don't kill the other guy, even if it puts them in harms way. In gunpowder warfare, you could load and pretend to shoot, or shoot over the other guy's head, or just load and hand off your gun to someone who is willing to shoot the opponent. This actually supports your argument, but not with artillery vs. personal firearms, but personal firearms vs. hand to hand. Hand to hand (bayonet charge etc) leaves no choice to a person to do or die.

Its really a fascinating book.

Lamont

I think there is truth in the notion that it is psychologically easier to kill from a greater distance. But I think in terms of quantity of killing, with the exception of nuclear weapons, more has been done at close range. While probably exaggerated, accounts of Alexander's battles number tens of thousands killed in a single day. Take a two masses of people, arm them with sharp pointy things, give them a shield and a chest plate, smash them together and see how many of them die.

It's possible that in Napoleon's time the close-ranked soldiers tended to die more under artillery, and tactics have changed to spread soldiers out and make each artillery hit less effective. So tactics weigh into it quite a lot.