OT: Western v. Eastern martial arts

[Omnirizon]

Are there any experts on the martial histories of the West vs the East? Or can anyone de-essentialize these a little for me? In my research the history of 'Eastern' martial arts seems to be concentrated in Japan, Korea, China, and S.E. Asia. Likewise, Western martial arts are located in the fencing schools of Germany, Italy, and France, but there is also some history on French kickboxing, English boxing, and Portugese 'stick fighting'.

While Eastern martial arts have a history and consistent style and terminology that ranges across centuries, Western martial arts that have such consistent focus on style is concentrated in the German and Italian fencing schools, but none of these ranged for more than several decades; never even a century! French and English boxing are really nothing more than informal styles evolved from street fighting. The German and Italian schools may have focused on a weapon (two-handed sword, side sword, rapier) but none of them were tied explicitly to one weapon, and all trained in the use of several weapons or shields and armors, generally as a companion to their favored weapon.

Eastern martial arts seem to be tied explicitly to a single weapon or style, with a history for that style extending for hundreds and hundreds of years. I think this is why we today link the word "martial arts" to "Eastern martial arts". There is a specific style for each specific family of swords, a style for each specific polearm, and style for each specific weapon with its own name and terminology. This is something the West has never had.

So my question is, if I wanted to reduce East v West martial arts down to a form that could be represented in a game, what would the specific effects of learning naginatajutsu vs. learning in a German fencing school be? (consider that the West never even had something so specific as a consistent style tied to a specific polearm like the naginata).

any thoughts on this problem?

also, any thoughts on why so many specific styles were developed in the East but never in the West?

[Tifone]

You are notably missing Greece, which Pankration is probably the basis of *all* martial arts (born by Spartan warriors and learned by Makedonyan oplytes, then expanded to all Asia with Alexander, to forge there the basis of Easter Martial arts in India which from there were brought -with of course enormous differences- to China... just a common theory anyway)

Your question is interesting but I'm not getting if you're referring to simulate the diifferences through Dom3-mechanics or another random game...

About the specific styles - in Europe we got mostly warriors practicing martial arts: practice war-arts, put some focus on your favourite weapon but you must be an all-around fighter, no time for style in war. Exception: Theutonics, Templars which were also warrior monks.
Asia: warrior monks practicing martial arts as a way to achieve perfection for body and mind. Highly acrobatic and coordinated styles. Different weapons coming from several needs (all those weapons coming from the law that paesants couldn't bring swords so you have to conceal self-defense weapons as agricolture tools ).

[Omnirizon]

sounds like a very West-o-centric theory to me. I'm pretty sure most Asian historians would disagree and claim that Eastern martial arts originated from some Chinese-Indian source.

[Tifone]

"Probably" being the key word. It's just a common theory. Nobody can negate Spartans gave birth to the first (chronologically) martial art - way of rendering the warriors super-efficient - and that this style was passed to Alexander's troops which conquered Asia. If those influenced India and through that, China (Indian monks going to China to teach philosophy and martial arts, tied together) it is of course a dark point

[Omnirizon]

I'd have a problem such a strong statement as "the Spartans gave birth to the first martial art", since as you pointed out these are dark points in history, and there is evidence of even the Native Americans developing open-handed styles of personal combat.

I'm more concerned with Middle Ages era of martial arts. It is at this point that we have specific styles developed for warfare (not just personal fulfillment or sport) in both East and West. Yet while the east developed a consistent style for each weapon or even multiple styles for one weapon, sometimes depending only on how you wore it on your belt, the West had a much more general focus; so while the east have specific terms for each style related to a weapon, the West has the more general term "fencing". Western styles are limited to the schools they came from, and typically when the teacher of a school died his style died with him. Eastern styles are focused on the weapon itself, and many schools would teach the same style with some variation. We just didn't see this in the west.

So my original question: how should the learning of of something like Kenjutsu vs the italian Dardi school be represented in a game system?

[Crust]

It's hard today to say what the martial arts were hundreds of years ago, what their relevance was. History is distorted and a count of "who won" does not tell what discipline the warriors practiced.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

So my original question: how should the learning of of something like Kenjutsu vs the italian Dardi school be represented in a game system?

I don't understand the point of this question in game terms.

So I guess the answer is - it doesn't matter. However you want.

Edit: I know quite a lot about Chinese martial arts, but not their history. No idea if that will help you at all, but feel free to ask.

[Nikelaos]

there are definately fixed european styles, though i think alot of them tend to be meant for team work whereas asian martial arts tend to focus on the individual. Not saying warriors didn't work together but the style was perhaps just as useful 1 on 1 as in a battleground situation.

fixed martial technique was definately used by the greek phalanx and roman legionnaires, though perhaps not as excentric as eastern martial arts there was a big sense of a central style, tending to focus on keeping the guy next to you alive (phalanx for instance covered half of themselves and half of the guy to their left with their sheild, this made a wall of overlapping sheilds leaving very few weaknesses)

for more easternish 1 on 1 styles there is the schools of european dueling swords (epee, rapier...etc), modern day fencing is derived from these styles, being a keen fencer myself i know there is a solid structure, there are set ways to parry,attack and even set ways on how to move you're feet - however evolving you're own style around the basics tends to be encouraged because it makes it hard for people to guess what you'll do next and how (a big virtue in a 1 on 1 duel)

[sector24]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Eastern styles are focused on the weapon itself, and many schools would teach the same style with some variation. We just didn't see this in the west.

So my original question: how should the learning of of something like Kenjutsu vs the italian Dardi school be represented in a game system?

I don't think this is necessarily the case, at least not for the entirety of history. There's a lot of anecdotal information indicating that talented fighters in the east would create their own schools which would last for roughtly their lifetime plus a decade or two and then be absorbed into other schools. For instance, the famous story about Sasaki Kojiro vs. Miyamoto Musashi. Kojiro founded his own school and even had a signature move, the "tsubame-gaeshi" but it didn't save him from being killed by Musashi. The school isn't around anymore, but the move survived.

So in the above case, I would consider training under Sasaki Kojiro to be the same as studying under George Silver except for one very vital difference; George Silver and many other European swordsmen wrote combat manuals which survive. I think the reason we believe the East had some kind of homogenous school of thought lasting thousands of years is because we don't have a written record to prove otherwise. But that doesn't mean things didn't change over time, it just means that when the process was finally put to paper, the independent schools had been absorbed.

The next important question is why do eastern fighters master a single weapon type while western fighters learn sword, dagger, buckler, etc.? Again, I think this is a misconception based on the fact that our contact with the east occurred during a relatively peaceful time in their history. For instance, significant western contact with Japan occurred just before Tokugawa Ieyasu had unified Japan. During the Edo period all these professionally trained warriors had no wars to fight. This led to a devotion towards perfecting their art rather than a practical application of arms. I think if you compared an 13th century samurai with an 18th century samurai, the 13th century warrior would have extensive knowledge of both the bow, the sword, and possibly other weapons such as the yari, hachiwara, naginata, etc.

By contrast, Europe did not have the social stratification that prevented samurai from being anything else. There was also a fairly constant level of warfare somewhere in Europe during the Middle Ages so martial skills were always innovating. And they wrote everything down so we have a record of it.

From a game design standpoint, I would not differentiate between west and east. And I apologize if the above is overly Japan-centric and massively oversimplified.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Omniziron

Eastern martial arts seem to be tied explicitly to a single weapon or style, with a history for that style extending for hundreds and hundreds of years. I think this is why we today link the word "martial arts" to "Eastern martial arts". There is a specific style for each specific family of swords, a style for each specific polearm, and style for each specific weapon with its own name and terminology. This is something the West has never had.

I think the true reason that we only think of eastern martial arts is that most of the western martial arts have been slowly forgotten since the discovery of guns. What has survived are only the written fencing manuals but also these show hints of different styles for different weapons.