Why did different cultures come up with different fighting styles?

[Ivan]

This is something that has eluded me for a while. We are all human. We all have 4 limbs. So what exactly has made different countries create such varied styles of fighting? Whether it be boxing in Britain, or Karate in Japan, it is very interesting to me how styles that have the same goal (hand-to-hand self-defence) have very little similarities unless countries had direct contact with each other. Why do you personally believe this is?

I think that cultural differences have some sort of influence on this e.g. in another thread, I commented that Mexican Style boxing is the way it is due to the emphasis on masculinity and “taking your hits like a man” in Mexican culture. But surely such a thing couldn’t account for the extreme variety in fighting methods that have been developed over thousands of years?

 

[WaterGal]

Why did different cultures come up with different languages, out of the same sounds that humans can make with our mouths? Or why do different cultures make different kinds of breads, even though they're all using the same basic ingredients? I think it's the same thing. People figured stuff out from nothing, and came with some slightly different answers.

 

[Tenshin]

Cultural differences is such a broad term. Most of the arts from the past were made during and due to actual warfare. People wore armor and used weapons.
Because of this they had to have ways to deal with opponents who were trying to kill them. It really is common sense, why you can not throw a jab at someone wearing armor but if you did a lunge push punch to knock him back he might fall allowing you to get to your side arm to stab between his armor points.
Things done 1,000 years ago in martial arts is very different than how we do things now, I am not sure if you train or trained in anything archaic enough closest arts I get is in the 1500's and there is a big difference in movement, mindset, techniques compared to anything 20 or 21th century.

However, most arts have more in common then they do in differences, you can only bend a joint x amount of ways, only so many ways to throw someone over your back.
The more you train in your art or arts and come across other arts the more you start seeing similar concepts and techniques.

 

[dvcochran]

Why did different cultures come up with different languages, out of the same sounds that humans can make with our mouths? Or why do different cultures make different kinds of breads, even though they're all using the same basic ingredients? I think it's the same thing. People figured stuff out from nothing, and came with some slightly different answers.

I have a different belief on the language but will leave it right there.

 

[dvcochran]

This is something that has eluded me for a while. We are all human. We all have 4 limbs. So what exactly has made different countries create such varied styles of fighting? Whether it be boxing in Britain, or Karate in Japan, it is very interesting to me how styles that have the same goal (hand-to-hand self-defence) have very little similarities unless countries had direct contact with each other. Why do you personally believe this is?

I think that cultural differences have some sort of influence on this e.g. in another thread, I commented that Mexican Style boxing is the way it is due to the emphasis on masculinity and “taking your hits like a man” in Mexican culture. But surely such a thing couldn’t account for the extreme variety in fighting methods that have been developed over thousands of years?

Great query.
I believe the number one factor that affected the originators is nature and the elements. A person in a temperate climate is going to move and think very differently from someone who is in a very cold or very hot area. This will greatly dictate body covering and mobility, greatly changing mindset.
Second I think would be external forces. The way an enemy repeatedly attacks is going to dictate how you counter.
Third would be emulation variants. I think at some point people started building off of what they had already seen or experienced. In a word, innovation.

I think it is getting very hard for current generations to appreciate the sheer difficulty of simply spreading menial communication over even small distances. Let alone sharing large amounts of complex data like that of a complete style.

 

[jobo]

This is something that has eluded me for a while. We are all human. We all have 4 limbs. So what exactly has made different countries create such varied styles of fighting? Whether it be boxing in Britain, or Karate in Japan, it is very interesting to me how styles that have the same goal (hand-to-hand self-defence) have very little similarities unless countries had direct contact with each other. Why do you personally believe this is?

I think that cultural differences have some sort of influence on this e.g. in another thread, I commented that Mexican Style boxing is the way it is due to the emphasis on masculinity and “taking your hits like a man” in Mexican culture. But surely such a thing couldn’t account for the extreme variety in fighting methods that have been developed over thousands of years?

yes, its very much to do with culture

look at the way traditional dancing changes from continent to continent, country to country to mirror the culture, then compare those dances to the ma and .....

 

[skribs]

This is something that has eluded me for a while. We are all human. We all have 4 limbs. So what exactly has made different countries create such varied styles of fighting? Whether it be boxing in Britain, or Karate in Japan, it is very interesting to me how styles that have the same goal (hand-to-hand self-defence) have very little similarities unless countries had direct contact with each other. Why do you personally believe this is?

I think that cultural differences have some sort of influence on this e.g. in another thread, I commented that Mexican Style boxing is the way it is due to the emphasis on masculinity and “taking your hits like a man” in Mexican culture. But surely such a thing couldn’t account for the extreme variety in fighting methods that have been developed over thousands of years?

It's not even limited to different countries. Japan has given us:

• Kendo
• Judo
• Jiu-Jitsu
• Aikido
• About a dozen styles of Karate

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Below is mostly my assumptions on the differences, not fact. I've looked into it in the past, so this is a combination of memory and logic.

Some of it's culture.
Some of it's the way war is fought in an area-a peaceful area will have a different focus then a warring area, and different strategies became popular in different places-if somewhere traditionally fights in open plains with horses and archery, the martial arts that develop there are going to be different than somewhere with fortified castles and siege warfare.
Another part of it is what is available to people, and what sort of weapons were made. If a culture arose in an area where there wasn't a lot of iron, the weapons that they use may not have been swords/machetes, but more arrows, or staves, or even spears/axes where there is relatively little iron involved.
Then there's also the science of armor, which relates a bit to the first point about peaceful vs. warlike. If people have created heavier/thicker armors, then the fighting style and weapons of choice will change to adapt to that.
Then to go along with culture, there's the laws of a society. Like skibs said, in some places there's multiple different styles that developed. That was probably more likely to happen somewhere where there was not a centralized style, and/or there were multiple different clans for a long time, there's probably going to be multiple different styles that are created, based around the culture of the clans, the rest of the above, and also just individual preferences of the main fighters/teachers. If there's kingdom's/larger clans, then there's a better chance that there will be a main fighting style distributed throughout the area.

 

[jobo]

It's not even limited to different countries. Japan has given us:

• Kendo
• Judo
• Jiu-Jitsu
• Aikido
• About a dozen styles of Karate

kendo is sword fighting, most countries have that in one form or another.

judo and jiu jitsu are the same thing and they didnt give us karate, so thats two. and one of them is more a cultutural celebration, than an actual fighting system
i supose you could throw in sumo, but the physical requirements make it a bit niche
id like to throw in the ancient british art of clogg fighting, as an example that there are more western arts than boxing and wrestling, it just not that popular these days for some reason, the scarcity of cloggs may be one reason,

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Its largely flair and enviromentally based. Many combat systems are similar and only vary down to flair, if it works they should all look the same or highly similar due to coming to the same conclsuons independently.


The sibject on culture and how it impacts martial arts can be a life long pursuit into research anyway and i am sure plenty of socologists have looked into it, but i can only really comment on kicking hisotrically in England.


As far as i know for the (late)victorian peroid, kicking was looked down upon, if you were to kick you were seen as not a functional memeber of society (i forget the best words to put there) so that influnced the usage of boxing, fights were also seen as somethign you should do 1:1 as well. Now something amusing, i have seen some news articles from the 1800's during the savate vs boxing stage of the peroid where people would look at the fancy savate kicks and basically come to the conclusion they are useless or sub par due to the gymanstic ability needed to use them as opposed to punching somone in the face. And some people didnt hold that view obviously. So the argument about the fancy high kicks is a pretty old argument that can be dated to i think the 1800's at least.


This is not getting into say, the civilising of boxing and making it a gloved sport thus if everyone did boxing gloved their street fighting would be based on a gloved system as opposed to say if you took a culture that had a ungloved system in such persiverience. Or if it was common to solve your disputes via swords. Diffrent coutnries regulated dueling diffrent and had it banned or unbanned. Like the civilising of boxing started when i think someone had their freind die in it, so they pushed for a universal set of rules to hold matches to and that expanded into modern boxing. It basicallt got more and more icivl and more and more rules until it basically became modern boxing with the gloves and the ring.

And you brought up karate, as far as i recall in the kingdom karate was made in martial practise was banned for a peroid? Or at least restricted to a certain class so that brings up a diffrent set of circumstances to somewhere where it wasnt class restricted or banned. Then you have how judicial duels are done and their rules, if you only duel you could get good at some really obscure ruleset that doesnt reflect outside of the rules fighting.


Anyway, i could ramble about this all day if i wanted to, i think that got my point across. The U.K took a pretty moral right turn in either themid-late 1700's or early 1800's if i recall. Which largely led to the way the empire was managed and how the empire would be managed, instead of say putting the entire population of a colony into slave labour until they all die being the norm. I think there is a fancy name for the peroid but i think it cropped up either early Victorian or late Georgian.

Addendum: Obviously weapons that are avalible is a pretty big impact on how you fight, although its not always obvious. you may think a weapon with a good point would be used for thrusting yet this populace may have used it for cutting. There are usually many diffrent systems within a population denoting diffrences in goal and weapons being used. And there are always diffrences in opinion in what is and is not acceptable behvaiour. Thought i best make the addendum and cover my bases in case.

 

[jobo]

Its largely flair and enviromentally based. Many combat systems are similar and only vary down to flair, if it works they should all look the same or highly similar due to coming to the same conclsuons independently.


The sibject on culture and how it impacts martial arts can be a life long pursuit into research anyway and i am sure plenty of socologists have looked into it, but i can only really comment on kicking hisotrically in England.


As far as i know for the (late)victorian peroid, kicking was looked down upon, if you were to kick you were seen as not a functional memeber of society (i forget the best words to put there) so that influnced the usage of boxing, fights were also seen as somethign you should do 1:1 as well. Now something amusing, i have seen some news articles from the 1800's during the savate vs boxing stage of the peroid where people would look at the fancy savate kicks and basically come to the conclusion they are useless or sub par due to the gymanstic ability needed to use them as opposed to punching somone in the face. And some people didnt hold that view obviously. So the argument about the fancy high kicks is a pretty old argument that can be dated to i think the 1800's at least.


This is not getting into say, the civilising of boxing and making it a gloved sport thus if everyone did boxing gloved their street fighting would be based on a gloved system as opposed to say if you took a culture that had a ungloved system in such persiverience. Or if it was common to solve your disputes via swords. Diffrent coutnries regulated dueling diffrent and had it banned or unbanned. Like the civilising of boxing started when i think someone had their freind die in it, so they pushed for a universal set of rules to hold matches to and that expanded into modern boxing. It basicallt got more and more icivl and more and more rules until it basically became modern boxing with the gloves and the ring.

And you brought up karate, as far as i recall in the kingdom karate was made in martial practise was banned for a peroid? Or at least restricted to a certain class so that brings up a diffrent set of circumstances to somewhere where it wasnt class restricted or banned. Then you have how judicial duels are done and their rules, if you only duel you could get good at some really obscure ruleset that doesnt reflect outside of the rules fighting.


Anyway, i could ramble about this all day if i wanted to, i think that got my point across. The U.K took a pretty moral right turn in either themid-late 1700's or early 1800's if i recall. Which largely led to the way the empire was managed and how the empire would be managed, instead of say putting the entire population of a colony into slave labour until they all die being the norm. I think there is a fancy name for the peroid but i think it cropped up either early Victorian or late Georgian.

Addendum: Obviously weapons that are avalible is a pretty big impact on how you fight, although its not always obvious. you may think a weapon with a good point would be used for thrusting yet this populace may have used it for cutting. There are usually many diffrent systems within a population denoting diffrences in goal and weapons being used. And there are always diffrences in opinion in what is and is not acceptable behvaiour. Thought i best make the addendum and cover my bases in case.

well yes, to most of it,

the british regarded fighting as hooliganism, the japanese as high art.

as such is was illegal in the uk, not that stopped it, but it shows the differance in culture,

the british then invented war games masquerading as ball games, that involved a lot of fighting, but as you were fighting for possesion of a leather ball this was ok and sport

the original football ( soccer )matches were fought( literally) between villages, 200 a side with the goals a mile or thee apart, it had a closer resemblance to a battle than a sporting occasion

when i say light heartedly, that football and rugby are ma, there is actually a significabt amount of truth in it, as that what they started as

 

[Deleted member 39746]

well yes, to most of it,

the british regarded fighting as hooliganism, the japanese as high art.

as such is was illegal in the uk, not that stopped it, but it shows the differance in culture,

the british then invented war games masquerading as ball games, that involved a lot of fighting, but as you were fighting for possesion of a leather ball this was ok and sport

the original football ( soccer )matches were fought( literally) between villages, 200 a side with the goals a mile or thee apart, it had a closer resemblance to a battle than a sporting occasion

when i say light heartedly, that football and rugby are ma, there is actually a significabt amount of truth in it, as that what they started as

Well given the first football game if i recall, dates to 1600's and it was orginally a no rules version of rugby and i cited the victorian peroid to now, so 1830+, i wouldnt say they are relivent, and given the major social uplift the U.K had since the 1600's in morality, i would state, the football came before the uplift not the reverse.

Violence is still enjoyed to this day, petty violence is the thing shunned and certain ranked memebers of society probbly shouldnt be engaging in un solciated bar fights as opposed to not going to a boxing gym, or enjoying watching boxing.


As for a ban, a ban on dueling yes, but boxing being used in lieu of sword dueling lasted longer than that, hell martial arts technically conflcits with many countries anti dueling legislation and assualt legilstation but most let it slide as everyones a consenting person and it doesnt do any harm. I think new york state in the U.S has mutual combat protected so you can fight with anyone there so long as its consentual.


According to something i just found the last duel in england was had in 1852, having diffculty for a ban date, but apparntly a edict was had to ban dueling in 1614. (so obviously pre union) So i am presuming they put the boot down after 1852 and that it in general met its end in the victorian peroid.

 

[jobo]

Well given the first football game if i recall, dates to 1600's and it was orginally a no rules version of rugby and i cited the victorian peroid to now, so 1830+, i wouldnt say they are relivent, and given the major social uplift the U.K had since the 1600's in morality, i would state, the football came before the uplift not the reverse.

Violence is still enjoyed to this day, petty violence is the thing shunned and certain ranked memebers of society probbly shouldnt be engaging in un solciated bar fights as opposed to not going to a boxing gym, or enjoying watching boxing.


As for a ban, a ban on dueling yes, but boxing being used in lieu of sword dueling lasted longer than that, hell martial arts technically conflcits with many countries anti dueling legislation and assualt legilstation but most let it slide as everyones a consenting person and it doesnt do any harm. I think new york state in the U.S has mutual combat protected so you can fight with anyone there so long as its consentual.


According to something i just found the last duel in england was had in 1852, having diffculty for a ban date, but apparntly a edict was had to ban dueling in 1614. (so obviously pre union) So i am presuming they put the boot down after 1852 and that it in general met its end in the victorian peroid.

no rugby is an off shoot of football, football came first by several hundred years, it only when the posh boys got hold of it that it turned into rugby

 

[jobo]

Well given the first football game if i recall, dates to 1600's and it was orginally a no rules version of rugby and i cited the victorian peroid to now, so 1830+, i wouldnt say they are relivent, and given the major social uplift the U.K had since the 1600's in morality, i would state, the football came before the uplift not the reverse.

Violence is still enjoyed to this day, petty violence is the thing shunned and certain ranked memebers of society probbly shouldnt be engaging in un solciated bar fights as opposed to not going to a boxing gym, or enjoying watching boxing.


As for a ban, a ban on dueling yes, but boxing being used in lieu of sword dueling lasted longer than that, hell martial arts technically conflcits with many countries anti dueling legislation and assualt legilstation but most let it slide as everyones a consenting person and it doesnt do any harm. I think new york state in the U.S has mutual combat protected so you can fight with anyone there so long as its consentual.


According to something i just found the last duel in england was had in 1852, having diffculty for a ban date, but apparntly a edict was had to ban dueling in 1614. (so obviously pre union) So i am presuming they put the boot down after 1852 and that it in general met its end in the victorian peroid.

quite possibly the least morality, there has been in the country for a thiusand years happened during the Victorian period