Concepts Behind Defence

[tellner]

There's a vital distinction here that a few people are missing - time and depth.

In the short term a few simple conditioned responses, a bad attitude (in the good way ) and single-minded goal-orientation are the way to go. You need high-percentage tactics that can be learned quickly and have a good chance of producing the desired outcome. I personally favor overwhelming force and massive damage for people at that stage of development. That's what has the best chance of keeping them in one piece long enough to pursue further training if they are so inclined. Fiery leopards and watery dragons will make you look stupid while someone is stomping a mudhole in you.

But later on the plain fact is that you can KISS yourself to death. It ain't simple. You ain't stupid. A robotic response will only take you so far. You need to explore your options, expand your horizons and develop things that take a little more time but make you more effective. Good body mechanics can take years to perfect. Distance, timing, the (applied) psychology of combat, adapting curriculum to meet your personal needs, et cetera ad infinitum take time. They take lots of time and effort. Things can get elaborate and over theoretical at that point. But if you have those fundamentals you'll be alright until you get through that stage to higher levels of development that will make you a better fighter in the end.

 

[Steel Tiger]

But later on the plain fact is that you can KISS yourself to death. It ain't simple. You ain't stupid. A robotic response will only take you so far. You need to explore your options, expand your horizons and develop things that take a little more time but make you more effective. Good body mechanics can take years to perfect. Distance, timing, the (applied) psychology of combat, adapting curriculum to meet your personal needs, et cetera ad infinitum take time. They take lots of time and effort. Things can get elaborate and over theoretical at that point. But if you have those fundamentals you'll be alright until you get through that stage to higher levels of development that will make you a better fighter in the end.

Cant argue with you on this point.

I guess my position is often unintentionally biased because I am not at the beginning of my training. yes I think that the sort ofthing I am talking about takes time. I suppose it is depth of knowledge, perhaps understanding, that I am looking at, and that takes time to develop.

 

[Langenschwert]

In Kunst des Fechtens, the earliest manuscrpit we have in the Liechtenauer tradition makes direct reference to Aristotle, specifically to use strength against weakness and weakness against strength. That's the overriding principle of medieval german martial arts. That and to strike first, strike fast, and strike hard.

The Italians get a little more into using analogies. Take a look at this segno from one of the editions of Fiore's Flos Duellatorum (Flower of Battle):

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=6107

Note that each part of the body is related to an animal. At the top, we see a lynx with a set of dividers to indicate wisdom. Over the swordsman's left arm we see a tiger with an arrow for swiftness to indicate that the left hand strikes swiftly to seek openings (for disarms and grapples, for instance). Over the right arm is a lion for daring (a vital quality for a swordsman) and at his feet there is an elephant for stability and upright stance.

There are other segnos that have a dragon for the right hand to show that a dragon injures by lashing his tail (the tip of the sword). I personally use that to visualize my sword as a whip when I strike. This same segno shows a ram at the left shoulder indicating what the left shoulder is useful for when closing. One of my favourite schwetnehmen (sword-takings) uses a shove with the left shoulder, FWIW.

Is that what you're looking for?

Edit: Here's an interview with Bob Charron, one of the leading authorities in Fiore and his Art: http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=436

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[thardey]

The Spanish style of fencing relies heavily on this type of thinking, but in an entirely different way.

Thibault "bastardised" the Spanish style, by combining it with some Italian styles, and came up with his own. It's based on the cultures he grew up in, and the philosophies of his age. His training is anything but simple - starting out with a very complicated series of footwork and drills based on the esoteric beliefs of his time.

The practical application is supposed to be very simple, and instinctive. This was Thibault's way of trying to get the best of both worlds.

Thibault's system was primarily based on the known universe at the time. 12 layers of "enlightenment" starting with earth at the center, then water, air, fire, 7 planetary orbits, and the 12th layer, the outer stars.

So he divided the sword into 12 sections, instead of the typical two or three (Forte, Middle, and Foible -- or strong, middle, and weak.) Earth being the strongest, and the heavens being the hardest to control, or the weakest.

Also, geometry was considered a spiritual practice at the time (and actually endorsed by the Christian Church, as a spiritual practice, believe it or not), so Thibault's footwork relies on the "perfect" combination of "squaring the circle," man's proportions, and combining them all to find the "golden ratio." (Think of the Vitruvian Man).

This stuff goes way deeper than I have studied, but it is very interesting. Like I said, it's similar to the animals, or the elements, but also way different.

Myself, I like to keep the image of a Tiger in my head while doing anything physical -- because Tigers weigh like 500 lbs, but you would never believe it just by watching them move. They move like they weigh 200 lbs, they are so strong, yet graceful.

I'm a big guy, 6', 250 lbs. - but my goal is to be able to move like I weigh about 180 lbs. I don't want to rely on my weight and strength, but I want to move quickly, and easily, and let the natural strength come into play. I'm beginning to succeed - last week my instructor guessed my weight at about 190 lbs, - until she tried to throw me .

 

[Balrog]

My preference is to teach avoidance and control of the environment. But if that fails and one must use force, then one should do it as peaceably as possible, but as forcibly as needed.

And the basic formula is: distract, release, stun, run.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Note that each part of the body is related to an animal. At the top, we see a lynx with a set of dividers to indicate wisdom. Over the swordsman's left arm we see a tiger with an arrow for swiftness to indicate that the left hand strikes swiftly to seek openings (for disarms and grapples, for instance). Over the right arm is a lion for daring (a vital quality for a swordsman) and at his feet there is an elephant for stability and upright stance.

There are other segnos that have a dragon for the right hand to show that a dragon injures by lashing his tail (the tip of the sword). I personally use that to visualize my sword as a whip when I strike. This same segno shows a ram at the left shoulder indicating what the left shoulder is useful for when closing. One of my favourite schwetnehmen (sword-takings) uses a shove with the left shoulder, FWIW.

Is that what you're looking for?

Thibault's system was primarily based on the known universe at the time. 12 layers of "enlightenment" starting with earth at the center, then water, air, fire, 7 planetary orbits, and the 12th layer, the outer stars.

So he divided the sword into 12 sections, instead of the typical two or three (Forte, Middle, and Foible -- or strong, middle, and weak.) Earth being the strongest, and the heavens being the hardest to control, or the weakest.

Also, geometry was considered a spiritual practice at the time (and actually endorsed by the Christian Church, as a spiritual practice, believe it or not), so Thibault's footwork relies on the "perfect" combination of "squaring the circle," man's proportions, and combining them all to find the "golden ratio." (Think of the Vitruvian Man).

Both very interesting conceptual processes. Like Exile, I had thought that this sought of imagery was an Asian phenomenon, specifically Chinese. Similar conceptuals indicators seem to occur in India, Malaya, and Indonesia. I had not thought to see anything like this from Europe. I don't know why I thought this given the rich mythology of Europe which includes animals to represent various attributes (just look at heraldry).

The Italian approach is very similar to that so often used in China.

Thibault's approach is intriguing with the application of the heavenly sacred number 12 combined with the sacred science of geometry being unsurprising given the political and religious environment he was operating under.

What I am finding is that the more I learn about the intricacies of European sword arts the more I discover a great interest. I think the great appeal of Asian arts is the rich connection to various cultures and how intertwined the two are. It looks to me that Europe has the same connection between war arts and culture. The musket and sport fencing have overwhelmed that cultural richness, but now it appears to be having a very strong re-emergence. I hope it continues.

 

[thardey]

A lot of the European philosophy behind fighting was discarded when it was finally accepted that the Earth orbited the sun, not vice-versa. Suddenly, we were no longer the center of the universe, so the idea of "aligning yourself" became too difficult. It was more than just the Church that didn't like Galileo and Copernicus' theories -- they challenged all of philosophy, most notably Platonism by their findings.

Most of the pictures were then lost to time, and many were limited to "pagan" rituals. So now we have to try and re-define these hidden teachings that have been lost, in order to truly understand what many fencing masters were saying.

The basic idea was that if you aligned yourself with the physical reality, you could align yourself with the spiritual reality as well, and could be more powerful, faster, balanced and "righteous", inside and out.

That's why duels were considered a good trial for a long time - the innocent person would be "in tune" with the universe, and would respond properly, and win the fight. Conversely, one who had devoted themselves to study, and who had trained to fight, was more likely to be correct in other, spiritual things than those who didn't exercise the self-control to learn to fight in the first place.

 

[Steel Tiger]

So from about the early sixteenth century concepts behind European arts were having to be reworked?

That's nasty!
Centuries, and potentially millenia, of theory had to be reorganised because a truth about the solar system was finally accepted.

It's not surprising, then, that European arts have appeared to be less sophistcated than those of Asia in modern times.

 

[thardey]

I forgot to mention Ptolemy, his theories explain the last 8 circles of the heavens.

 

[thardey]

So from about the early sixteenth century concepts behind European arts were having to be reworked?

That's nasty!
Centuries, and potentially millenia, of theory had to be reorganised because a truth about the solar system was finally accepted.

It's not surprising, then, that European arts have appeared to be less sophistcated than those of Asia in modern times.

Right

Where our basic understanding of animals hasn't changed since the first pets, the Chinese, or any animal based system, hasn't had to change their understanding.

On the other hand, the theories in Europe where either based on faulty astronomy/astrology (they were fairly synonymous, from what I understand), or based on faulty physics -- the four elements Earth (which sinks in water), Water (which is lighter, and sits upon earth), Air (which is above earth and water), and Fire (which can be observed trying to ride above air.)

Then the enlightenment came, and the fighting started all over again, with Napoleon and Nelson being the next, new heroes.

 

[tellner]

My preference is to teach avoidance and control of the environment. But if that fails and one must use force, then one should do it as peaceably as possible, but as forcibly as needed.

And the basic formula is: distract, release, stun, run.

I'm afraid I have to disagree in very strong terms.

Avoidance is good. Prevention is good. But if someone wants you personally you can only run so long, and they will get to you. By spending a lot of your time adjusting to them you've given them control of the situation and put yourself behind the curve physically and psychologically.

When the time comes to use force the time for "peaceably" is long since past. Of course you need to stay within the law. And of course you need to stay within the broad ethical parameters concerning violence. That's not even an issue.

Let's look at it realistically. You have already given up several important advantages. The other guy has started the fight because we don't initiate violence. He has a plan. He is not constrained by his conscience or the law. If he were you wouldn't be deciding how to stop him. He has some reason to believe that he can take you without getting too badly hurt himself. Otherwise he would have chosen a different victim.

How much deeper a hole are you willing to dig for yourself?

As peaceably as possible but as forcibly as needed is a pretty fine line in the heat of someone trying to beat and rob you, stab you or stick various body parts into places where they are not welcome. Your primary concern has to be ending the situation definitively in a way which keeps you safe. That means that if you're going to physically resist you can't be half-assed or hesitant about it or worry about some aesthetic of philosophical standard of "peacefulness". You have to take care of business before it takes care of you. And you have to do it when the criminal is already a few lengths ahead and gathering steam.

Do what you need to to stay safe. Don't break the law. Don't hurt anyone if you don't have to. Stop when you are sure there isn't a threat. Beyond that you can't hesitate or hold back or you will become a statistic.

Scream, struggle, run away is nice if it works. But it has serious drawbacks. For one thing you only have a limited amount of all-out effort. And the advantage of surprise is something you only have once in an encounter if that. Use both of these wisely. Consider that having to hurt someone is bad. Running before it's safe to do so my well have you dragged down from behind by someone who has just decided to take you seriously sucks almost beyond comprehension.

It's one of the main reasons to train hard. If you're fair to middling you don't have too many options. Being effective often means hurting someone badly. If you're really, really good you can safely control the person without harming him. But you have to be really, really good.

 

[thardey]

P.S. There is a little bit of this that survived, but only partly.

From what I understand, the Filipino Martial Arts, especially escrima, use the male and female triangles to describe footwork. This idea came from the Spanish during their colonization. This is a simplified survivor of European theory, with triangles common in Marozzo, and probably others. The triangle was a symbol of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as one). The idea of the "male" and "female" triangle is a whole other rich history study.

The Europeans, on the other hand, dismissed the old stuff as "primitive" and totally re-worked their idea of fencing. Now the straight line was honorable, instead of the heavenly circle, or the primitive triangles.

As Nelson said "Never mind the maneuvers, always go straight at them!"

 

[tellner]

P.S. There is a little bit of this that survived, but only partly.

From what I understand, the Filipino Martial Arts, especially escrima, use the male and female triangles to describe footwork. This idea came from the Spanish during their colonization. This is a simplified survivor of European theory, with triangles common in Marozzo, and probably others. The triangle was a symbol of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as one). The idea of the "male" and "female" triangle is a whole other rich history study.

The Europeans, on the other hand, dismissed the old stuff as "primitive" and totally re-worked their idea of fencing. Now the straight line was honorable, instead of the heavenly circle, or the primitive triangles.

As Nelson said "Never mind the maneuvers, always go straight at them!"

Well now, that's an interesting thought. And in fact it's one that I had a long time back. But it's only a small part of the story. I'll go with the less important part first.

Consider the Spanish school. What made it so much different than other European methods of the sword? What were the unique cultural influences that added that extra bit of zing?

I'll give you a hint.

If you look at the arms, armor and particularly archery of the Poles (to some extent) and the Hungarians (big time) up to the age of gunpowder what are they like? They are damned near identical to what the Turks were using.

The Spanish have alternately glorified and minimized the influence of their Muslim past. But it can't be denied. The Spanish style of fencing has a very geometric formulation which is characteristic of Islamic sciences, particularly in the marvelous cross-fertilized era of Moorish Iberia. The earliest records of the Spanish style of fencing come, surprise surprise, from a bit before the Reconquista. In other words, the Spanish style of fencing has some serious Muslim roots. A good part of the Filipino use of triangles came from North Africa and the Middle East via Europe.

That's only if you take (once again) a limited view of history and believe that it revolves around Western Europe.

The use of this sort of geometric formalism in the martial sciences isn't just Spanish and Filipino. You find it very explicitly in Persia, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Subcontinent (among both Hindus and Muslims), Peninsular Malaysia, the Indonesian Archipelago and the very Muslim Southern Philippines. If it were Spanish influence that were responsible you'd expect it to be concentrated around Luzon and the Visayas. The use of the straight line, the square, the triangle, the circle, the cross, the Enneagram and a number of other similar diagrams as training aids and footwork patterns is much more extensive than you are probably aware.

What's more likely is that the same Islamic martial and mathematical (and philosophical and alchemical and magical and mystical) sciences and traditions of scholarship which informed fighting systems throughout the Muslim world and Spain made their way to the Philippines both through the European conquerors and cultural exchange with the rest of the Islamic world.

In fact, the further you go from the areas the Spanish conquered the more sophisticated it becomes. There's a reason Guro Inosanto says the late Johnny La Coste's footwork was so good. He got a lot of his training from the Southern Philippines. Move into what are now Indonesia and Malaysia proper and it gets very highly developed. What most American practitioners of the Filipino martial arts call triangle footwork is a tiny piece of what you find in Silat or the Indian fighting systems.

Then too, you didn't get the most sophisticated Spanish fencing in the newly conquered East. The rich nobles who employed the best sword masters stayed in Spain. The people who headed literally halfway around the world were merchants, soldiers, sailors and third sons looking to make their fortunes.

In short the evidence points to a forced devolution of the martial arts of the conquered parts of the Philippines compared to areas where Spanish influence was weak and they were more freely practiced.

The manly "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" method of sword fighting also requires a bit of context. It was certainly taught to soldiers and sailors. But it didn't really come into its own until well into the age of gunpowder, massed pikes and dueling. The sword had ceased to be an important weapon of war for the foot soldier. It had some use in self defense, but in most of those cases the presence of a sword trumped whatever the criminals had. If the bandits had swords any sort of systematic formal training gave the defender the edge - so to speak.

The Italian school was more linear and straightforward than the Spanish. Even so, the surviving manuals place a lot of emphasis on off-line movements like the in quartata, in quintata and the various passes.

The extremely linear style of fencing exemplified by the classical French school grew in popularity as it was relegated to sport and the set-piece duel which is just another form of sport when you get right down to it. When there is just one opponent who follows a strict set of rules in a controlled environment you can optimize along a single straight line. In an actual fight against a skilled adversary or the chaos of group conflict it can get you extremely dead extremely quickly. There's a reason Thibault puts a skull on the centerline of his circles. Charge up there and someone with footwork will kill you.

Of course it's easier to teach this sort of thing to tars who only practice the cutlass drill a few times a year. And if you want men to move in formation you teach them to move in straight lines. Otherwise they trip over each other.

The reason the triangle and circle are used as platforms for footwork has little or nothing to do with the Holy Trinity or the Divine Heavenly circle. If you've been spending time listening to John Michael Greer on this you might want to stop. He is a navel-gazing occultist, not a fighter. And he over-theorizes horribly.

The triangle teaches you a number of things about distance, the extent of your movement in a single phase, the range of your natural and artificial weapons in relation to your stance, the strong and weak angles of your structure and a number of other things.

The three important circles are the one around you that defines your immediate control, the one centered between you and your opponent which defines the action between the two of you and one tangent to that which defines the offline footwork angles. It isn't a matter of Divine Perfection or Sacred Geometry. It's a reasonably straightforward guide to what you can do to him and what he can do to you without losing structure and position.

That is the unimportant part of the discussion.

The more significant bit is simple.

The human body is essentially the same throughout the world. The triangle, circle, straight line and square are similarly identical everywhere except in R'lyeh and the Unspeakable Throne of Azathoth the Blind Idiot Deity People who are solving the same problem with the same tools over a long time will come up with pretty similar answers. You find this sort of thing in places like Japan and non-Muslim parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It speaks for itself.

 

[Langenschwert]

What I am finding is that the more I learn about the intricacies of European sword arts the more I discover a great interest.

With regards to parallels, one needs only to look at Japanese and German swordsmanship. We have basically the same guards and many of the same techniques. A KDF practicioner and a Koryu Kenjutsu practicioner well generally recognize what the other is doing. The weapons are different (nihon-to and longsword, for example), but we generally know the same "tricks". We both stress that attack and defence are one. You attack so that you are defended, and defend with an attack. Even jiu-jutsu and medieval German Ringen are very similar, for that matter.

It's possible to overstate the imagery in the concepts. They're there as a mnemonic aid, Thibault's esoteric style aside. The idea is to hit so well that your opponent never comes to blows himself. Whether you're thinking about Fire, elephants or marmosets really doesn't matter so long as your opponent ends up beneath the grass and you get to go home.

My mnemonic aid when fighting is a Russ Meyer movie title: "Faster Pussycat, Kill Kill!!!" Works great. Give it a try.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Langenschwert]

It's not surprising, then, that European arts have appeared to be less sophistcated than those of Asia in modern times.

They lack the window trappings for the most part. For me, that's part of the appeal. European arts are about keeping what works, and throwing out what doesn't. Personally, I am content with "pointy end into enemy" as imagery. As far as physical sophistication, they are on a par with any other, and in effectiveness, I believe they are unsurpassed. They are first and foremost survival skills, honed in the crucible of European martial culture. I absorbed the Italian segno's and left it at that. I prefer the German imagery, which describes exactly what you're doing:

Zornhau: (Rage Strike) Descending diagonal cut, done with oomph.
Zwerchau: (Cross Strike) Horizontal cut with hands held high
Krumphau: (Crooked Cut) Cut that arcs out like a windshield wiper
Schielhau: (Squinting Cut) When your body is in the right position, you will have only one eye on your opponent
Scheitelhau: (Parting Strike/Scalp Strike) Descending Vertical strike that literally "parts the hair" of the opponent

Still vivid imagery, but practical imagery.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[thardey]

Well now, that's an interesting thought. And in fact it's one that I had a long time back. But it's only a small part of the story. I'll go with the less important part first. . . .


In short the evidence points to a forced devolution of the martial arts of the conquered parts of the Philippines compared to areas where Spanish influence was weak and they were more freely practiced.

That's very interesting . . . I hadn't got to the history before Thibault, but that makes a lot of sense - I don't know why people think the Arabs and Moors were ignorant, but all you have to do is look at the history of castles and such to realize they took a very practical approach to warfare.

The connection also explains why the Spanish style is so radically different from the rest of Europe.

The manly "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" method of sword fighting also requires a bit of context. . . .

. . . The Italian school was more linear and straightforward than the Spanish. Even so, the surviving manuals place a lot of emphasis on off-line movements like the in quartata, in quintata and the various passes.

Right - we also study Saviolo, and he works on a circle, and angles - never charge up the middle. I've also heard some debate on Fabris, and some others on whether or not the advocated attacking off - line. Even with the lunge.

The extremely linear style of fencing exemplified by the classical French school grew in popularity as it was relegated to sport and the set-piece duel which is just another form of sport when you get right down to it.

That seems to be what I've found, as well. I think you're spot on.

Of course it's easier to teach this sort of thing to tars who only practice the cutlass drill a few times a year. And if you want men to move in formation you teach them to move in straight lines. Otherwise they trip over each other.

I think that's a large part of it - but it seems that different cultures weigh in on bravery/aggression vs. thinking/strategy at different levels.

For instance, the art I study is based on Tang So Do, among others. So far as I've seen, there is almost nothing in the traditional teaching about moving off-line. All the katas and movements involve moving straight in, and beating your opponent by better attack combinations.

It's not a formation type of thing, nor is it a "it's easier to teach in straight lines" kind of thing either. It seems to more of an "the most aggressive typically wins" kind of mindset. The most aggressive attack is straight.

Before the enlightenment, people seemed to look for a supernatural boost by following prescribed rituals, before, and during fighting. The idea was to be "at one" with whatever system you believed in. Which is a good idea, if you are at odds with your beliefs, you will be timid, and hesitant.

After the enlightenment, when there wasn't as much spiritual pressure placed on fighting - it became purely practical, and the cultural shift seemed (to my eyes, anyway) to move towards more of a "macho", "might makes right" kind of mentality. Duels were not fought so much to determine the innocent and the guilty, they culturally shifted to more of a defense of honor and strength. If you didn't respond to a duel, you showed yourself weak, which made you a target. (Also, this idea is common in the middle east, as well, and I don't know if one side influenced the other).

If you're fighting to show strength, as a deadly sport, the straight line attack certainly looks more courageous.

The reason the triangle and circle are used as platforms for footwork has little or nothing to do with the Holy Trinity or the Divine Heavenly circle. If you've been spending time listening to John Michael Greer on this you might want to stop. He is a navel-gazing occultist, not a fighter. And he over-theorizes horribly.

:rofl:

Ahh, you know him? I only took one seminar from him, at the release of his translation of Thibault's manual. I didn't understand most of what he said, and dismissed a lot. He did however, introduce the idea of Platonism to me, which I only caught because it was a missing puzzle piece I had been looking for -- the rest I have been studying myself -- church history, a little bit of architecture, (mostly cathedrals in Italy and Malta), tactics of battle and strategy, and the culture that drove those tactics - eventually I would like to pursue the art a bit more, but one thing at a time!

Actually it was the ideas of Ramon Martinez that got me started on this train of thought years ago. That a culture drives the "rules of engagement". It was from him that I got the impression that the Spanish fought mathematically and cold-blooded, while the Italian and French fought with passion. This also seems to match my impression of their cultures in that period of history. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

The more significant bit is simple.

The human body is essentially the same throughout the world. The triangle, circle, straight line and square are similarly identical everywhere except in R'lyeh and the Unspeakable Throne of Azathoth the Blind Idiot Deity People who are solving the same problem with the same tools over a long time will come up with pretty similar answers. You find this sort of thing in places like Japan and non-Muslim parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It speaks for itself.

That is pretty much what I believe it boils down to. That's why I lean more towards Saviolo's practical swordwork than Thibault's. It's just easier to see the Platonism in Thibault, so I study that for the glimpes into the mindset of the day.

I believe in fighting, and religion, and life in general, that there is an analogy to mathematics.

You start with an equation that is relatively simple, but useless. That is "X" is in a place where it does you no good. In order to harness the power of the equation, you have to first solve for "X". To do that, the equation can become horribly convoluted, filling entire chalkboards. Once you have it all complicated and confusing, and completely impractical, you start eliminating the superfluous. Things start to cancel out. By the time you're done, you're left with a simple equation, that is useful.

So, simple is the best, but you can't skip the process of making it complicated, before it becomes simple, otherwise, you won't understand what to do with even the simple bits.

 

[tellner]

but it seems that different cultures weigh in on bravery/aggression vs. thinking/strategy at different levels.

For instance, the art I study is based on Tang So Do, among others. So far as I've seen, there is almost nothing in the traditional teaching about moving off-line. All the katas and movements involve moving straight in, and beating your opponent by better attack combinations.

It's not a formation type of thing, nor is it a "it's easier to teach in straight lines" kind of thing either. It seems to more of an "the most aggressive typically wins" kind of mindset. The most aggressive attack is straight.

You've got to remember what Tang Soo Do - which is to all intents and purposes a mid 20th century version of Shotokan - is. It's a physical education, physical culture and sporting form of martial art predicated, once again, on a single opponent in a contest governed by strict rules. That actually describes most martial arts taught today. It's not a bad thing, and I'm not denigrating them. But the context of the engagement dictates a lot about how it will play out.

This was meant to be taught to large groups of people in particular secondary and university students. It was meant as a hobby and a form of exercise for self improvement. One of the reasons that Japanese Karate and its Korean offspring got such traction is the American Occupation of Japan after WWII. The old warrior arts were banned. Judo came within a whisker of being destroyed and only survived by radically changing its image. Karate wasn't considered a militarily useful system of combatives, so it was allowed to fill the gap.

Like "classical" fencing and the modern Olympic version it put a premium on athleticism, speed, power and linear footwork. To the extent that it was taught to soldiers it was never intended as a primary weapon. If you're a soldier and you're playing knuckle-tag with the enemy things have gone seriously wahoonie-shaped. You're about to have a walk on part in the next body count. On the other hand if you use it to develop aggression, intention and pain resistance Karate can be an excellent vehicle if it's modified appropriately.

Before the enlightenment, people seemed to look for a supernatural boost by following prescribed rituals, before, and during fighting. The idea was to be "at one" with whatever system you believed in. Which is a good idea, if you are at odds with your beliefs, you will be timid, and hesitant.

After the enlightenment, when there wasn't as much spiritual pressure placed on fighting - it became purely practical, and the cultural shift seemed (to my eyes, anyway) to move towards more of a "macho", "might makes right" kind of mentality.

That's an interesting point. I'm a little hesitant to agree to whole-heartedly. Reason is a pretty thin gloss on the surface of our brains sad to say. Deep down we are emotional, rationalizing and magical thinking. A lot of training - martial, mystical, vocational, what have you - is designed to work with those parts of the psyche often as a means of getting the rational part and the rest to work in synch. Three hundred years of rational ascendancy aren't a patch on a billion years of evolution.

Why people fight and how they fight is a fascinating study. The basic reasons are status within your group, breeding rights, property, protection of family or territory. These haven't changed much since our ancestors were giant amphibians trying to survive and breed more giant amphibians. Look at a troop of baboons interact with itself and with another troop of baboons, and you've got better than 90% of it covered.

Even the how is pretty much the same if you leave aside projectile weapons and industrialized warfare. There are certainly styles and fashions. I think we're just emphasizing cognitive styles that were in fashion at different times.

"I am Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow. I am Beowulf, the one sun-seeker. I am Beowulf, who killed Grendel. I did not fear the child of Cain. No more do I now fear You"

is pretty much the same as

How you expect us to take you seriously?
The look in my eye punk, has got you scared of me
I'm blastin your sons, I'm snatchin your funds
You catch a royal ***-whoopin, you've been askin for one

or

Oh, my name is Mike Fink, I'm a keelboat poler,
I'm a Salt River roarer and I eat live coals .
I'm a half-alligator and I ride tornaders,
And I can out-feather, out-jump, out-hop, out-skip,
Throw down and lick any man on the river.

You have to make the men brave enough to fight but trained and disciplined enough to survive. Everyone must hold his position in the shield wall; when it's their actual irreplaceable life on the line people get downright practical about preserving it. There has to be a fine balance between the limbic system and the forebrain. There always has been, and similar methods have been used to shift it one way or the other and to maintain it. The cultural window dressing changes, and sometimes it's a little more in one direction than another. But it would be hard to make a case about universal trends over the past couple thousand years.

Duels were not fought so much to determine the innocent and the guilty, they culturally shifted to more of a defense of honor and strength. If you didn't respond to a duel, you showed yourself weak, which made you a target. (Also, this idea is common in the middle east, as well, and I don't know if one side influenced the other).

Status. Breeding Rights. Property. Your place in the pecking order. That's plain timeless. Chimps and Chihuahuas have almost everything in common with us. Bonobos, now there's a different story. But this is martial arts, not marital arts.

If you're fighting to show strength, as a deadly sport, the straight line attack certainly looks more courageous.

Exactly. If the idea is to kill someone as efficiently as possible you do one thing. The Vikings are coming. If we don't kill them they will burn our crops and we will starve. So we do them as quickly as possible with the least risk to ourselves.

If the idea is to impress the other guy and everyone else with your strength and manliness and your quality as a potential sperm donor you emphasize things that are stupid but show off your speed, strength, health, courage and ability to take punishment without falling down. That's the whole point of stealing the next village's cattle, playing football, wearing lots of gold chains or displaying a bigger, more purple rear end than the next baboon.

Actually it was the ideas of Ramon Martinez that got me started on this train of thought years ago. That a culture drives the "rules of engagement". It was from him that I got the impression that the Spanish fought mathematically and cold-blooded, while the Italian and French fought with passion. This also seems to match my impression of their cultures in that period of history. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

That is pretty much what I believe it boils down to. That's why I lean more towards Saviolo's practical swordwork than Thibault's. It's just easier to see the Platonism in Thibault, so I study that for the glimpes into the mindset of the day.

Ah! Maestro Martinez is a real treasure, a solid journeyman in an age of wannabe apprentices. Swordsmanship is a cultural art. The culture it is embedded in informs a lot of things about it such as whom you fight, when and how. Absolutely. Get a better idea of how people think and you'll know more about the other arts which they produced.

Like I say, I think Thibault's book and what he taught the customers who paid the bills were a little different from the way he made his reputation as a swordsman. Or maybe he just started deepening his understanding with age and it took some odd turns. Is there a good translation of Saviolo with a reasonable price tag?

So, simple is the best, but you can't skip the process of making it complicated, before it becomes simple, otherwise, you won't understand what to do with even the simple bits.

yesyesyesyesyesyesyesgivethemanacigar!

"Before Zen chop wood, draw water. After Zen chop wood, draw water."

It's simple, but it's not easy. And your ability to use it depends not only on your knowledge and physical and emotional attributes but your ability to use simple things in sophisticated ways which adapt to changing conditions. Over in the Indochinese forum I posted something a while back about five rough stages of a martial artist's development. You can't get to any of them without passing through the ones in between. At some stages things get more complex. At others they get simpler depending on where you are in the process.

 

[thardey]

Is there a good translation of Saviolo with a reasonable price tag?

Unfortunately not -- however, today is your lucky day! My fencing Instructor now lives and teaches in Portland, and he teaches Marozzo, Thibault, and Saviolo! (He cycles through them, spending about 4 mos. on each.)

He just started Marozzo, and Thibault, but I can get you on his mailing list, if you PM me your address.

He's studied and worked with Martinez, and he helped Greer with his practical translation of Thibault, not the mystical stuff.