Arts of the white man and the native american

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1,113
Location
Huber Heights, OH
So you don't actually have any source for your conclusions on how native americans fought. I base my conclusions about how they fought upon first hand accounts, first person recounts, and oral histories. I came across most of them during my research on period Bowie and period Tomahawk technique and use. Most accounts give next to no information that is useful. However, accounts of native american combat which do include any sort of useful information will occasionally include words like, "punching and kicking." Most accounts of single-combat or dueling among or with native americans include accounts of grappling, wrestling, and "death grips." and may sometimes also include phrases such as "punching and kicking." Based upon these accounts and the well documented evolution of armed melee combat in other places, I have concluded that native american combat probably had a preference for using melee and ranged personal weapons but included strong elements of grappling, and sometimes included "punching and kicking" as supplements to the weapon work.

To be honest, I was told this by one of my karate teachers, and his question to me was, why is something that is so hard to do well, so, common? I came up with, entertainment, and it seems a less dangerous way of stabbing (or jabbing) which is sort of a sexual thing, but who knows? The bottom line is that, punching occurred a lot less through human history than you have been led to believe. It is more likely you babied your hands, so that you might still hold a weapon. :)
Perhaps you've made an unjustified assumption. You assume that the hand wasn't designed ("evolved," whatever) for punching, but, well, apparently some really smart Dr.s think maybe it was. Here are a couple of articles discussing the study.

Evolved Fists or the Best Weapons at Hand? - Retort
The evolution of the hand: Making a fist of it | The Economist
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
844
Location
Spokane Valley WA
So you don't actually have any source for your conclusions on how native americans fought. I base my conclusions about how they fought upon first hand accounts, first person recounts, and oral histories. I came across most of them during my research on period Bowie and period Tomahawk technique and use. Most accounts give next to no information that is useful. However, accounts of native american combat which do include any sort of useful information will occasionally include words like, "punching and kicking." Most accounts of single-combat or dueling among or with native americans include accounts of grappling, wrestling, and "death grips." and may sometimes also include phrases such as "punching and kicking." Based upon these accounts and the well documented evolution of armed melee combat in other places, I have concluded that native american combat probably had a preference for using melee and ranged personal weapons but included strong elements of grappling, and sometimes included "punching and kicking" as supplements to the weapon work.

Perhaps you've made an unjustified assumption. You assume that the hand wasn't designed ("evolved," whatever) for punching, but, well, apparently some really smart Dr.s think maybe it was. Here are a couple of articles discussing the study.

Evolved Fists or the Best Weapons at Hand? - Retort
The evolution of the hand: Making a fist of it | The Economist
Our hands have done nothing of the sort. I don't believe that for a second. :)
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1,113
Location
Huber Heights, OH
Our hands have done nothing of the sort. I don't believe that for a second. :)
OK, now you're either just having a go at me for the fun of it, or, well, best to leave that unsaid.

In either case, this is going nowhere. I've laid out evidence and described where I draw my conclusions from. You can either explain why that evidence is "wrong" or you can continue to ignore it. If you're just having some fun with me, then I don't have time for it today. If it's the alternative, then I definitely don't have time for it.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
844
Location
Spokane Valley WA
OK, now you're either just having a go at me for the fun of it, or, well, best to leave that unsaid.

In either case, this is going nowhere. I've laid out evidence and described where I draw my conclusions from. You can either explain why that evidence is "wrong" or you can continue to ignore it. If you're just having some fun with me, then I don't have time for it today. If it's the alternative, then I definitely don't have time for it.
If our hands evolved for thrusting, we would be born knowing how to thrust. It just doesn't follow that we would evolve for something we don't know how to do. Do you follow? :)
 
OP
P

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
398
Not necessarily. Medieval European? Maybe... but, though I don't have hard facts handy, I suspect that the run of the mill soldier wasn't wearing metal gauntlets. Native American? I'm pretty confident that they had hide gloves at best. I've never seen much showing that they had a lot of extensive metal use like that. Bone, leather, wooden armor? Sure.

A standing, professional soldier class is something that it takes a certain level of both warfare and technology/cultural advancement to support. Otherwise, the culture just can't spare a few bodies from farming or hunting or other survival tasks just to stand around and be ready to fight. (Heck, in many of the cultures we think of as having them -- the folks whose primary role was fighter were really a minority and viewed as leadership, not the rank & file.)

The knights would wear metal gauntlets and the knights were not run of the mill soldiers. The regular foot soldier was usually a drafted peasant, somebody from the lower class, the dirt poor class. A standard knight on the other hand was upper class although low level upper class and as such the knight would have access to stuff the foot soldier wouldn't such as a full set of armor. And from what I heard boxing was used by the knights, maybe not by the foot soldier but by the knights as a sport and as a form of combat.
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1,113
Location
Huber Heights, OH
I can provide evidence that Aliens are controlling our minds, but it would still be false. :)
So your rebuttal is "nuh-uh."

<sigh>

I still don't know if you're just friendly trolling me or something else but, in the end, it doesn't matter. Until you can come up with something better in way of rebuttal, this cheeseburger is fully cooked; it's "done."
 

Hong Kong Pooey

Blue Belt
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
96
I'm confused by this whole thread.

Surely no-one is suggesting that medieval knights had boxing matches in full plate armour with metal gauntlets on?
 

Latest Discussions

Top