Seeking opinions and knowledge

[KC Elbows]

For some it will probably be in that order. :p

Is kung fu battle tested, and what are your sources for this?

I say some straight forward sets, like hsing yi spear, but hand to hand, especially utilizing fists, is soooo not "good for use against armor", and complex weapon movements don't seem suitable for fighting in units. Plus, a lot of these arts or the versions of them that lived to today were after guns changed everything, even in china, it seems to me. Which leaves street fighting as a source for testing, which we still have today.

[shaolin kungfu]

Something tells me lkfdmc(**** man, thats a hard name to remember, and i probably got it wrong) will have something useful to say about this.

As for me, I dont know.;)

[Starchaser107]

intelligent people have better and more fullfilling things to do on weekends:(

[Kristoffer]

pretty much, yeah

[WanderingMonk]

Just to throw out some examples

Lien bu quan
http://www.rovere.com/lbc.html

Broad Swords - Used by the Chinese infantry against Japanese during WWII. These units were trained in a mixed broad sword form and worked well against Japanese in closed-quarter combat.

Shaolin staff - some thirty-six (?) monks were sent by the Shaolin Temples to help put down the Japanese pirates plaguing the Chinese coast during the Ming Dynasty. Unfortunately, all perished but received commendation from the government.

Both Broad sword and shaolin staffs story were found in Chinese language web site.

Shuai Jiao was used against the Russians when the Chinese and Russian contested two islands on their boarders during the 1960s. From the Chinese version of events, it worked quite well. Of course, the Russians might dispute this.

wm

[Oso]

I'm not as sure about chinese history but in European history battles were still fought mostly w/o fixed lines until the 14th or 15th century and not everyone was catching on till much later.

but, then again, there were all sorts of fixed line units pre CE with Romans, Greeks, Hopplites(sp?) and all them. must have gotten lost in the dark ages or something.

maybe something about feudalism that encouraged single combat....


(mental note: must read more actual history books instead of taking my history from alternate reality history books)

(mental note 2: but, then again, how do we really know the history books are correct?)


so, anyway, wouldn't China have had a similar evolution from single combat to group combat and shouldn't some cma still have that flavor vs. group combat flavor?

[Kristoffer]

so, anyway, wouldn't China have had a similar evolution from single combat to group combat and shouldn't some cma still have that flavor vs. group combat flavor?

Hmm. Interesting thought..

[MasterKiller]

The roots of Chinese Kung Fu's battle-field heritage lie in weapons training. It stands to reason that every meaningful battle ever fought in China (just like everywhere else in the world)involved weaponry like spears, swords, etc, which is why Kung Fu training today still involves learning these weapons even though they aren't necessarily practical.

And, oh yeah, at the end of the Sui dynasty, Zhi Cao, Tan Zong and eleven other Shaolin monks rescued the prince of Qin, Li Shimin.

As far as street fighting goes, I would say that modern street fighting invloves weapons, and even more often that not, multiple attackers as well. Which is why modern gangs aren't beating each other up using BJJ.

[Shaolin-Do]

Nah, they use black jacks and billy clubs, sometimes a knife or gun. :)

[method man]

only kung fu battle test is mother style of ju jitsu all military come from this

[Kristoffer]

only kung fu battle test is mother style of ju jitsu all military come from this


what are you talkin about? ju jitsu camed from Shuai Chiao, wich has been around China/mongolia for a long time..

[unrelated]

Oso, You might find Delbruk's four volume set: _History of the Art of War_ interesting. He discusses the development and types of warfare from ancient times to near modern. It is surprising how many current historians show a lack of knowledge of Delbruk's work in their analysis.

[Merryprankster]

maybe something about feudalism that encouraged single combat....

Standing armies are expensive, and close quarters drilling is a highly precise endeavor. Can't pull a farmer out of the field, hand him the heavy armor and weapons needed for tightly packed, formed line combat and expect anything but a mess.

They were probably best suited to lightly armed skirmishing. So that's how they fought.

[unrelated]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Standing armies are expensive, and close quarters drilling is a highly precise endeavor. Can't pull a farmer out of the field, hand him the heavy armor and weapons needed for tightly packed, formed line combat and expect anything but a mess.

They were probably best suited to lightly armed skirmishing. So that's how they fought.

No army is suitable for use without training, regardless of whether it is based on individual skill (e.g. knights) or mass shock formations. However, competent individual fighters require a much higher level of skill than those in a mass formation. Indivual combat favors intense lifetime skill development. Mass formations are ideally suited for farmers in the field with little (but not no) time to practice. The reasons for the development of one method over another in a particular time and place are primarily rooted in the social structure of the society.

[Starchaser107]

See ,I told you the intelligent people came out on weekdays.:p

[No_Know]

Chinese sword hilts have a design to keep blood off of the hand. And Chinese double-edged swords have sections to them for cutting and for blocking.

The complex techniques could be several hits/deflections which in practice seems one sweeping motion~.

Armor is only so thick. When trained well enough a punch's energy~/force could supposedly transfer through certain thicknesses. Strength and leverage study to off-balance an armored character or cross their limbs to afect efficient mobility or attack potential.

At least two Kung-Fus are group based. Iron Broom (low long sweeping move that is trained to be repeated). And Obsticle Passing--for running untouched through a crowd.

Not every battle had armored soldiers on both sides, perhaps. Land pirates were also a cause to fight even if one never saw a professional government's army.

[KC Elbows]

Okay, I know that pirates were an issue, and granted than line formations probably weren't the norm(my bad), but considering that many forms of kung fu are younger than the requisite era for them to have actually been battle tested to any great degree, and the ones that are supposedly old enough have undergone changes since that also were not likely to have been battle tested, aside from street fighting, I still think practitioners more assume this is a truth than know it. Examples: choy li fut, pa kua(except for by bodyguards), I didn't think tai chi was that old either.

I'm not saying these arts lack anything, just wondering if "battlefield tested" is inappropriate for most arts and every weapon form made up in more recent centuries. I mean, even if the spear moves were older, the combination in newer forms is not, and so that combo is not really tested in the way many like to think.

As for fists and armor, I've seen a guy dent 70's car steel with his thumb(crazy serb dude, used to do this trick whenever people parked too close), but pugilism against armor doesn't seem practical at all, because even if you dent the armor enough to touch the person, the blow is still pretty spent, whereas a throw or sweep would leave an armored person fighting the weight of their armor in order to get back to their feet, which is **** hard from what I know. It seems the smart fighter would go for the takedown, instead of fighting strength(of metal) with strength(striking).

Basically, aside from a couple events, most referrences I've read between kung fu and "battle field testing" either relies on "it wouldn't make it to us if it wasn't", which is not exactly a reliable assumption except for those in a universe where the sun still orbits the earth(being an example of a belief that persisted for centuries but was wrong), or relies on "well, the chinese fought skirmish/many were bodyguards, etc", which is more reliable, but still does not put a specific stylist on a specific battlefield in action, testing the many moves they might know. All it does is tell us that the chinese fought that way, not give us the results of tests that may have happened.

Also, actual dueling stories would also tell more than the inference that probably stylists fought in the field. Unfortunately, the stories are often such legend sort of stories that they don't tell us anything useful about what actually happened, though I'm sure somewhere there are more reliable stories than what little I've read.

Again, not slamming kung fu. It's good stuff, imo, but that's based off of learning how it works, not assuming a "battlefield testing" that may not have happened that way.

Even for the really old arts, huge elements of those arts as we have them today are not as old as the arts, but much more recent developments, and the more recent they get, the less likely they were used in war ever. Maybe by bodyguards, maybe by street thugs, maybe by smugglers, but not likely in war.

[ZIM]

Good book to read: Turney-High, H.H., Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts, 2nd ed. (Columbia, S.C., 1971).

Good article to waste time with: http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

Weird historical fact for no reason at all: The Phalanx tended to drift towards the right... ;)

Contemporary accounts [and archaelogy] of warfare give the lie to what we typically consider warfare in the time of knights to have looked like- the did fight in units and they did not wear full plate armors- in fact, the development of full plate was for the idealized combat of the Tourney, not for general war- which should give us a hint of what's going on with some of Kung Fu...

Further, it's worth noting the direction which invasions occurred in China, historically speaking: only twice in it's history [once in modern times] has anyone successfully invaded South to North- the typical route was always North to South. The Southern arts are, therefore and possibly, for a different purpose than open war...

Third, take into account the typical enemies faced- in the South, political rivals, in the North "barbarians" of various hues...How were they armed? How did they fight? These questions give clues to what eventualy came about, IMHO...

And last- to the topic of historic validity of the arts when they came about after the fact: The answer is- but of course! There's always a lag time- these arts developed as a way to preserve what worked in the past...Western fencing looks nothing like what was used, nor does boxing, in truth.. but they are preserved nonetheless. ;)

[Ford Prefect]

Mass formations to be used by minimally trained farmers? Are you serious? You think it doesn't take doscipline and a high level of training to fight en masse in formation? Most minimally and even more expereinced soldiers will crack and break formation during heavy fighting. This is the exact reason why Spartans were so dominant over their lesser trained Greek brethren for so long.

The untrained and minimally trained are definately much more at home on the open field than in formations.

I'm not saying that open field fighting is a testament of military inferiority.

[unrelated]

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say anything about the level of training or discipline required to organize any specific army or fighting regime. This subject is far to broad to address every factor in a single post. The point was that greater RELATIVE INDIVIDUAL skill is required to field effective INDIVIDUAL combatants as compared to that required to field effective shock formations. Skirmishers fall into the category of indivual comabtants, as do other types of troops. In many cases, skirmishers were trained from youth.

Conversely, higher levels of social involvement and organization are required to field effective mass formations. One requirement is systematic, but not necessarily, full-time, practice. Another is some level of organized logistics, often requiring a monetary, not barter economy.

'Spartans and Athenians' do not really capture the full essence of the difference. Both used very similar methods of fighting (shock formations based upon the phalanx). However, the higher quality of the Spartan army was based upon social conditions -- the soldiers were full-time soldiers-aristocrats. The Athenians were part-time citizen soldiers.

The untrained are practically useless in warfare, unless you just need a mob to pillage and burn a defenseless town. FWIW, though, if you used untrained troops, they typically would mass together into a very tight 'formation' as opposed to form skirmishing units. They would also break upon first contact with trained troops be they 'individual type' or 'shock mass formation' type.

[Merryprankster]

Success on an open skirmish field would have depended more on who had numerical superiority than individual skill.

Secondly, I don't consider a mob to be a formation.

[Ford Prefect]

Gotta agree with MP. I count a formation as an organized, cohesive unit acting as one.

The Spartans and all other Greek city-states used the same phalanx style fighting, but it was the full-time training and discipline of the Spartans that held out over their lesser trained foes when they broke formation and ran. Thus was my point when I said that formations were the tool of a highly trained and discipline military and aluded to the Spartans. I think it captures the crux of the argument beautifully.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Is kung fu battle tested, and what are your sources for this?

Some styles of kungfu have been employed formally in military and quasi-military situations, as has been historically documented (eg. Yin Fu and the Dowager princess).

However, assuming this equates to something being battle-tested, and assuming that has any meaning translated to a very different time, culture, and individual practitioner, and assuming factors unrelated to the formal training weren't important for this battle-testing, and assuming we limit ourselves to these few styles for which this was the case - this still doesn't mean kungfu today is battle-tested; simply because kungfu people today aren't training the same way, for instance, Yin Fu did (and it's the training, not the namesake, which matters).

P.S. Ford and Merry, shaven-headed and donning black trenchcoats, have kidnapped us all and placed us in a mock city in the middle of space, and have blackmailed a simpering Kiefer Sutherland to inject the correct directly into our brains while we sleep.

[Shaolin-Do]

Of course training nowadays is nothing like what it was...
Spartan 12 yr olds were made to sneak up behind a slave and cut their neck. What a great birthday eh?
Morals and international standards have changed... and the invention of guns completely changed warfare forever. Cavalry still carried swords, even in the west during the civil war, but emphasis of skill was with the rifle, or the bayonette. Not the sword.

[unrelated]

Numbers matter a great deal, however, one factor is not enough to predict which side would be successful. Did you have some specific sort of scenario in mind when you made your statement?

I assume what you mean is that a mob is not a useful military formation. If so, then we agree. I was simply pointing out that when a group of untrained people are gathered for military purposes, they tend to clump together in a mass. This is sometimes referred to as ‘mob formation.’ If you have a better term, I’d be interested to hear it.

The tendency for a group to close together is one of the psychological factors that made the trained shock formations so useful. This tendency is something that had to be overcome in the training for individual combatants or skirmishers.

[ZIM]

CM is correct enough that there is little need to invent some horrendous imaginary scenario to describe it.

From the Civilisation of China ebook, ch 1, the feudal age:

"When the armies of these states went into battle they formed a line, with the bowmen on the left and the spearmen on the right flank. The centre was occupied by chariots, each drawn by either three or four horses harnessed abreast. Swords, daggers, shields, iron-headed clubs some five to six feet in length and weighing from twelve to fifteen pounds, huge iron hooks, drums, cymbals, gongs, horns, banners and streamers innumerable, were also among the equipment of war. Beacon- fires of wolves' dung were lighted to announce the approach of an enemy and summon the inhabitants to arms. Quarter was rarely if ever given, and it was customary to cut the ears from the bodies of the slain. Parleys were conducted and terms of peace arranged under the shelter of a banner of truce, upon which two words were inscribed— "Stop fighting.""

That last is compelling- what is it in Chinese? Wu Su?

Anyway- here it is. (http://historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=49&cid=1) A general work.

[WanderingMonk]

Since we're on the subject of formation fighting.

The Qin Emperor's tomb and its Terra-cotta statues can give some insight on how the Chinese fought.

http://www.warriortours.com/cityguides/xian/terra_cotta_army/military_formation.htm

They have calvary units, cross-bow units, infantry, etc.

Two CMA weapons trained today (Guan-dao, and long spears) were also used in those time.

Guan-dao were employed originally by calvary and anti-calvary. Some poor foot soldier usually hiding in a ditch waiting for the calvary to charge and chop off horses' legs as the calvary pass by.

Long spears are great in open field combat with its reach.

I believe xing yi came from the long spear techniques because one of the master felt it was silly to carry a long spear around during peace time, so he modified the technique for use in h2h combat.

About individual combat vs group combat. I read an article recently which alluded to the class structure within the Chinese society. It was inapproriate for a lower class person to kill a high class person akin to having a foot soldier or cross bow soldier killing a knight in Europe during the Medieval time. Hence, there was a great deal of personal combats between generals instead of general leading the soldiers into fight. Lower class foot soldier fight lower class foot soldiers while higher class general fight higher class generals.

This explains personal challenge scenario in the Romance of Three Kingdoms games by KOEI. This type of concept can be easily overlook by modern observer because of the modern democratic movement in which all men are considered to be equal (well, some more equal than others, depending on the size of your wallet or more approriately the amount of money in your bank account).

wm

[WanderingMonk]

One more thing, I also read when laying siege, they will have soldiers tasked with the job to insult the opponents by swearing, etc, etc, etc.
So, it would incite the opponents to leave the safety of their forts and enter into martial combat.

In fact, all the b.s. that I am spewing is actually an ancient kung-fu practice passed down through millienia. I should practice my mouth-fu more often.

wm

[Ford Prefect]

Wondering Monk,

That is an old tactic that was used as recently as the latest Iraqi war. The US convoys would drive through town with loud-speakers blaring insults to the resistance fighters' manhood, which caused them to come out of hiding and expose themselves by openning fire on the convoys. Seems insulting their manhood/masculinity drives many of them absolutely nutty.

[No_Know]

Battles that are won by talking...

Battle tested.?. Im a 200th level gods tremble and the overlords of the dead cower rediculously arch mage (in some not real~ game). Some beginning gamer asks me do I have the same skills as a second level assassin. Not having a double damage for attacks from behind I say No. Beginning gamer smiles and goes off happy ans smug the rest of the day.

Umm, If approaching Today the amount of battles lessened yet there were arising/new Kung-Fus...if the new kungfus were put together of Kung-Fus that were tested on the battlefield (tracing the liniage~/history) and it was put together by an authorized person. As things change and should when needed. The new Kung-Fus might carry the whatever of having been battlefield tested perhaps.

Please note: a battlefield tested Kung-Fu might have solely civilian applications in the system and even the same form. Abattlefield tested Kung-Fu migh not have been made soley for the battlefield.

Some-such, one might say

[WanderingMonk]

Ford Perfect,

didn't know that one.

wm