Author Topic: Dumb historical martial arts question  (Read 244 times)

Offline drummerboy

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2352
  • Thanked: 194 times
  • Religion: Indomitable Spirit
Dumb historical martial arts question
« on: July 28, 2018, 02:02:22 AM »
So, I've always pondered, reading the history of various martial arts, such as muay thai, karate, kung fu, tae kwon do, etc, (taking into account that these systems have changed or been systemized in modern times, but the techniques themselves being practically speaking the same, being based off the older arts), that how is it these combat forms were developed and practiced by warriors in armor?  I know these systems teach, at the least, some form of joint manipulation, with varying degrees of grappling, but the question still remains, why would men using these techniques for life and death base them on strikes, knowing they will encounter armored opponents in battle (and I obviously know these would be last resort techniques)?  The Japanese used jujitsu, and Europe had various forms of combat grappling.  Was it perhaps also a form of physical and mental conditioning, much as military recruits in modern times spar with boxing gear?  And looking at 21st century armies, where body armor and helmets, besides combat vests and belts loaded with gear, also present obstacles to strikes, we perhaps see the same question, as most techniques still mix strikes with grappling.  Does the striking lead into the grappling, where the opponent is finished?  Just musing here  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: ServusMariae

Offline red solo cup

  • John 6:56
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Thanked: 2190 times
  • Religion: Fair weather Catholic
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2018, 06:34:52 AM »
As I understand it the under classes weren't allowed to have weapons and so developed unarmed techniques.
"It's so lonely 'round the fields of Athenry"
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
  • Thanked: 934 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2018, 08:49:17 AM »
Armor was expensive. I think the range of protection offered diminished as one went down the ranks also.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
  • Thanked: 934 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2018, 08:50:14 AM »
Kung fu also has a lot of weapons training. My old sifu used to train the Chinese army. These arts are still relevant.
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 

Offline LausTibiChriste

  • #ImpeachFrancis2018
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5514
  • Thanked: 2525 times
  • sip sip
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2018, 12:55:01 PM »
I quickly read the title as ‘marital acts’. I was disappointed
‎"Traditionalists are some of the worst modernists on the planet"
     -Fr. Chad Ripperger

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
     -Wayne Gretzky
          -Michael Scott
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline MundaCorMeum

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4325
  • Thanked: 4076 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2018, 01:13:05 PM »
I quickly read the title as ‘marital acts’. I was disappointed

I read the same.  KK will be happy we were wrong  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: LausTibiChriste

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12753
  • Thanked: 4775 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Dumb historical martial arts question
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2018, 09:42:31 AM »
As I understand it the under classes weren't allowed to have weapons and so developed unarmed techniques.

It is not only unarmed techniques, they also (for the same reason) developed fighting techniques using staves and farm tools.  A kama for example is a scythe.



At any rate, most of what we thinking of as eastern martial arts was not for the warrior class, so armour was not an issue.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.