Hello Robert,
Spada e Pugnale,
While your post is insightful and well-substantiated, I think you have taken the microcosm of "swordsmen" or even "warrior", both of which denote individuality, with a much larger-scale picture of historical armed formations and even entire armies in most cases (with the exception of your UFC example)
Well, while there are certainly major differences between single combats and group actions, the fact remains that "swordsmen" and/or "warriors" often had to engage in both. A soldier, in addition to fighting in large battles, might also have to fight in smaller skirmishes, and there may have been times when he had to defend his person in single combat, either in street self-defense, or in a duel (depending on the time period and culture, of course).
We must also consider the fact that individual fighting skills play a role in mass warfare, as well as in single combat. Vegetius's description of legionary recruits drilling at the wooden stake with mock sword-and-shield vividly reveals this. It perhaps also accounts for things like Giacomo di Grassi's comments regarding the whole "cut vs. thrust" deal--he considered thrusts generally superior in single combat, but still recognized the utility (indeed, the necessity) of cuts, especially in actions against multiple opponents. In fact, while di Grassi's manual is principally concerned with single combat, he still made a point of stating that his book was geared primarily for soldiers.
So, IMHO, I don't think we can separate the two issues. The "microcosm" of the swordsman and the "macrocosm" of group warfare actually go hand-in-hand, unless we are restricting ourselves to the topic of civilian duels.
In a battle between sword-wielding armies, the ones carrying polearms or ranged weapons or on horses will have a technical advantage.
That's a bit of a generalization.
Sword-armed infantry, in the form of Ancient Roman legionaries and Renaissance-era Spanish rodeleros, fought against polearm-equipped infantry on a fairly frequent basis (Greco-Macedonian phalangites and Swiss reislaufer, respectively). It is true that the polearm-wielder generally has an advantage in terms of range, but this can be compensated for by various means, in order for the swordsman to take advantage of his own equipment and training. The use of missile weapons like pila (in the case of the legionaries), or friendly supporting pikemen (like the rodeleros) are examples of this.
Those possessing necessary skills to deal with terrain limitations and climate differences will have a technical advantage. The list of advantages goes on and on based on size, strength, leadership, technology, et cetera et cetera. Certain tactics and approaches were effective against certain types of adversaries, and if one element was stomped out by another, it can't really evolve and adapt.
No doubt--and much of what you say above was demonstrated by the Spanish and their adversaries.
That said, we are not so much dealing with comparing group contexts against each other, rather the heart of this thread (at least in my opinion) is aimed at determining if martial arts/swordsmanship in the past were as refined and effective as the nostalgics here tend to promote them.
I suspect that, in many cases, they were.
A strong source of this I believe is rooted in Eastern orthodox styles, especially those with teacher-worship systems. Not religious worship, but the customary modesty that one's teacher is always light-years ahead of them, and their teacher is light-years ahead of them, and when HIS teacher was alive...you can see how it goes on.
What you describe is something I am only vaguely familiar with, since I have not trained to any real degree in "Eastern orthodox styles" of fighting. My main branches of focus have been modern Western fencing (which is a combat sport, as opposed to a martial art), FMA, and BJJ.
One thing that those three styles share is a comparatively relaxed atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, we have respect for our moniteurs, maestros, guros, tuhons, coaches, etc., but we respect them first and foremost because we are very much aware of their actual ability. In the sports and arts I train in, practitioners from various levels regularly test their abilities as a matter of course--free-sparring is central to all of them.
Another source of this belief is that we are not killing each other with swords very often really, and not being "life-and-death" thing, we generally consider martial arts to be more relaxed and we will never attain the levels of those masters of the old days who needed to build the skills.
The focus is different these days, for the most part.
Most weapon arts have either been transformed into friendly sporting competition, or into "classical" martial arts that appear to have lost much of their practical application a long time ago. Arts can often change radically over time.
I think your reference to MMA and UFC is valid for a point I would like to make...the separation of martial from the martial arts in a variety of schools. This separation is usually not intended, but training methods and resultant mindsets are lacking, though confidence in the art usually remains. The result is people studying this or that art with the assumption it is useful martially, and another martial art with a more aggressive baseline will dominate (as in the instance of BJJ as you mentioned earlier).
The thing is that cultures didn't always have the ability to persevere and adapt. UFC sorta demonstrates evolution of training methods and technique adjustment to respond to changing threats from competent or highly-skilled proponents of other martial styles.
This concept and approach is an old one, and it has come and gone in cycles. There was of course the "original" NHB event--the Greek pankration. The Roman gladiatorial games can also be viewed as a sort of "martial arts laboratory", where different combat styles were pitted against each other (and it should come as no surprise that there was--as Peter Connolly once pointed out--an exchange of ideas between the gladiatorial schools and the Army).
Closer to our own day, MMA matches were held in England and America, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The rivalry between the two great groundfighting traditions of East and West (jiu-jitsu/judo and catch-as-catch-can wrestling, respectively) was particularly fierce. You had many tremendous competitors on boths sides--men like Martin "Farmer" Burns, Frank Gotch, George Bothner, Mitsuyo Maeda, Yukio Tani, and many others.
This form of evolution is much more diverse and condensed than most cultures would get to mess with, as "martial diversity" within a culture usually corresponds with low-intermediate level martial artists, not necessarily allowing as full a range of techniques and specialties to be experienced.
Actually, that depends upon what specific culture we are talking about.
Peoples that actually had so-called "blade cultures" (The Spanish, the Italians, the Scots, the Filipinos, the Japanese, etc) developed their arts to a very high level, and often had to use them against a myriad of different opponents.
The keen edge and point of the rodelero's sword, for example, was not only felt by his Continental French and Swiss opponents, but also by the Ottoman Turks, and the Aztecs and Incas.
The Filipinos had to deal with incursions by Sino-Japanese pirates (wako), as well as the long occupation by the Spanish, and raids by rival Filipino tribes. The Philippines' unique position--especially in the 16th and 17th centuries--made it a true "martial arts crossroads", where local fighting methods had to evolve and adapt.
Back to the question that I am trying to tackle...were olden-days swordsmen really all that great? The answer is maybe.
I would say that some definitely were, and others were not.
Again, there is a big difference (ability-wise) between a Spanish rodelero and, say, a Gascon infantryman.
Or, for an Eastern example--there's a big difference between a samurai in Hideyoshi's army that invaded Korea, and the peasant infantry (both Korean and Ming Chinese) that he had to face.
It's hard to say for certain what has evolved within arts but attributed to the founder, it's hard to say if certain things became "better" or "worse" over time.
It depends on what the needs of a particular art were, at any given time. And again, those needs often change.
It is an interesting question if you are studying Yang shi taijiquan and wonder "I wonder if Yang Lu Chan was as good as he was purported to be?" and then "How does one learn to attain that?" These guys had to train too, and they had to think about how to improve and how they could be better. If we were to attack this from a "current" perspective, is it really so impossible to think that the great masters alive today can acquire what their teachers taught during their lifetimes? It sometimes sounds like it, because you always hear "no matter how much I learn, he's always so far ahead of me". Sorta gives one a sense of futility doesn't it?
No doubt some feats are exaggerated, and luck obviously has played part in the success of some, but perhaps some martial artists were truly fantastic?
I suspect so, yes.
I think the average everyday guy would have reasonable proficiency, but the finesse we strive for in many of today's orthodox arts were probably never attained by anyone but the most "elite".
Perhaps.
Most of what Japanese-style and Chinese-style swordsmen train in these days is more egotistical than martial. The same applies to many unarmed combat arts.
I don't know how "egotistical" that material currently is, but I agree with you that much of it is no longer "martial".
Sure, it existed historically, but usually in a context surrounded by other types of training, mindset development, et cetera. If you think of a specific martial art, then you look at what it tends to downplay, you are taking it fully out of a context it probably should be in. For instance, while I can agree that many modern Chinese martial arts mostly ignore ground-fighting, I find it hard to imagine large "melee" battles were comprised of standing up punching and kicking and complicated techniques without any groundfighting.
A couple of points on this issue:
1. I actually don't know of any Chinese martial arts that incorporate groundfighting, at least not as it's understood today (as a primarily grappling endeavor). The ne-waza that is so characteristic of Japanese grappling is glaringly absent from Continental Asian systems.
2. Most military theorists--from Ancient Greece thru the 20th century--have been of the opinion that groundwork should be avoided in battle situations. The focus (grappling-wise) has always been more on standing throws and the like.
However, the fact remains that groundfighting still happened. Period artwork shows this. And, there were at least some military cultures that appear to have at least made allowances for it--the Medieval/Renaissance Germans come to mind in this regard.
And this mentality is making a comeback, as evidenced by the incorporation of BJJ in modern military combatives.
Granted, I'm sure there were those who were just as "ignorant" as those martial artists who are looked down upon by "serious" practitioners, and likely paid for that egotistical ignorance with their lives. Orthodox martial arts usually don't originate from people who only know that art, and even the first few generations probably strive to be diverse.
Definitely. Period fencing treatises, for example, often describe the peculiarities of opposing styles.
OF COURSE, this is outside the picture of battle formations, technological approaches to warfare, et cetera. These are the things that can conclude battles, wars, and empires, though we still are looking at things on an individual level.
But again, I feel that the two can never be fully separated.
This answer is undoubtedly simple and doesn't adequately address those warriors who trained as group formations, etc. Rather, this focuses on individuals who themselves were martial artists.
It is a complex issue, and perhaps it requires us to narrow down the debate/discussion to specific warrior cultures.
Peace,
S e P
I then sold her house (where I had been living prior) in December. Shortly afterwards, I discovered that I had a retina problem, called lattice degeneration (where the retina becomes thin, and is hence more likely to detatch). It can be helped with laser surgery, and I had my left eye zapped about 2 weeks ago. This week, the doctors are gonna check it to see how it scarred up, and, if all is well, they'll do the other eye after that. They say that I should be able to resume stickfighting and BJJ, but I'm also considering a return to fencing--this time with classical maestro Ramon Martinez, in NYC.