Reconstructing Ancient Martial Arts

[Reima Kostaja]

Really interesting stuff, take a look.

link here (http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/ancient.html)

[taijiquan_student]

Yeah, I have that book. It's really quite awesome.
You should get it if you're into that kind of stuff. Highly recommended.

"Duifang jing zhi meng ji, wo fang tui zhi ce fang xi zhi."

[Kung Lek]

Look up George Silver too. A member here posted a link to a couple of his papers some time ago.
ahhh, here it is!...George Silver's "paradoxes of defence" (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html)

Anyway, he was an english swordsman and martial arts practitioner appointed to the court a few centuries ago.

Had a few remarkable things to say about the "poor" state of martial arts instruction in england. :D even way back when.

The hopologists have pretty good sites (go to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) and type "hopology") and I'm willing to bet my broadsword you will be able to find tons of interesting materials from days of yore in your local military museum, university archives and other non standard non-general public sort of information repositories.

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

[joedoe]

Interesting stuff :)

cxxx[]:::::::::::>
You're fu(king up my chi

[sanjuro_ronin]

And excellent read fro those truly interested in western AND eastern MA.

http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/ancient.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some of my favs:

Tracing or reconstructing extinct martial arts, of course, requires more than a fair share of speculation. It seems that at least some early fighting systems traceable in early recorded history, preserved elements of religious or at least shamanic exclusivity that prohibited outsiders from learning and passing on jealously guarded secrets. In non-literate societies, this means that an art would cease to exist (and be lost to the antiquarian) when the native masters were unable or unwilling to pass on their knowledge.

There are other obstacles. Masters like Liechtenauer actually made a point of keeping their instructions as cryptic and unintelligible to outsiders as possible. Accordingly, fencers imprinted by the modern versions of the art and without the urge to research the early schools of the sword, gladly embrace the assumption that before the Spanish and Italian fencing masters popularized the rapier and thrust fencing, there must have been a void of skill and technique, the obvious lack being made up by brute strength.

Suetonius mentions that Tiberius was able to pierce an apple with his index finger, a technique referred to as spear-finger in some modern Asian systems. The gladiatorial games and schools, where fighters were systematically trained in highly specialized fighting systems, have never been analyzed in regard to technical detail–although one of our Adventures will introduce us to one of their techniques.

But Odysseus has not only mastered breathing, concentration and punching techniques. He also appears to have a solid knowledge of pressure points and "nerve centers". His deliberately chosen target coincides with Tegner’s nerve center #25:

In this area there is a concentration of nerves. The target is behind and up under the jawbone. (...) A jabbing or punching blow results in considerable pain. The extended knuckle or fingertips can be used.

[David Jamieson]

one more time, because it bears repeating. :)

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

one more time, because it bears repeating. :)

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

Point 9 warms my heart , being of the spanish school myself, but if you could make note of YOUR views, I think that would be good too.

[diego]

And excellent read fro those truly interested in western AND eastern MA.

http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/ancient.html

cool, thanks Sanjuro.pz

[sanjuro_ronin]

An interesting point that the author makes in the book that this is an exerpt from is that, warrior civilizations such as the Spartans and Romans ( at their highest martial peak) denounced "combat sports" as counter-productive to the "warrior mindset"....

" But the most serious military societies, Sparta and Rome, trained for war more directly and reduced the role of sport or condemned it. They recognized that it was an inefficient, haphazard training, and the seemingly undisciplined combat events were particularly suspect. "

[SimonM]

I think what that is mostly about is that the single-combat mindset is counter-productive to the professional soldier. Fighting in part of a mass group using co-operational tactics is VERY different from dueling.

A skilled duelist would probably slaughter a legionaire in single combat.

Put 100 skilled duelists onto a field against 100 legionaires and the duelists will fold like a paper airplane.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think what that is mostly about is that the single-combat mindset is counter-productive to the professional soldier. Fighting in part of a mass group using co-operational tactics is VERY different from dueling.

A skilled duelist would probably slaughter a legionaire in single combat.

Put 100 skilled duelists onto a field against 100 legionaires and the duelists will fold like a paper airplane.

Hmmm, assumption...based on the THEORY that a trained legionaire devoted his time to mass warfare and very little to one on one combat and the reverse was applicable to a duelist.
I theory I don't prescribe too.

[SimonM]

SR mass combat and dueling require differing and often contradictory requirements. Fighting against a single opponent as if you were in a phalanx is a good way to get dead.

Likewise duelistry, which depends largely on mobility doesn't include training in cooperative tactics.

[sanjuro_ronin]

SR mass combat and dueling require differing and often contradictory requirements. Fighting against a single opponent as if you were in a phalanx is a good way to get dead.

Likewise duelistry, which depends largely on mobility doesn't include training in cooperative tactics.

I agree, but to conclude that a Legionaire, for example, had inferior individual skills based on the fact that he trained for mass combat forgets that individual skills was still needed as more often than not, one still fought one-on-one on the battlefield, not to mention all the OTHER times he fought.
Spartans and Macedonians were great mass warfare fighters and they were also excellent single conflict fighters, how do we know this?
Homer Iliad for example and also, a tad of common sense as we apply it today:
If you can't take out one guy, how well will you do on the battlefield?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Don't forget that the requirements of being a proficient "part of the machine" are the same that will make a fine duelist, though not always the reverse is the case.
The physical attributes are the same, though the intent is more "intense", at best it can be argued that a duelist probably has more "fakes" in his repetoire, which are countered by the "legionaires" "quick kill intent".

It can be argued...

[SimonM]

Your buddies are covering your flanks with their shields and spears on a battlefield mass combat scenario. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm simply saying that the tactics needed to train a single-combat specialist are in some ways mutually exclusive with the tactics neede to train a mass-combat specialist.

Now, one could always train for both with sufficient time and effort. :P

[sanjuro_ronin]

Your buddies are covering your flanks with their shields and spears on a battlefield mass combat scenario. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm simply saying that the tactics needed to train a single-combat specialist are in some ways mutually exclusive with the tactics neede to train a mass-combat specialist.

Now, one could always train for both with sufficient time and effort. :P

Yes, your flanks are covered from angles that aren't applicable to a duel, unless its a tag team duel.
What I am saying is that a mass-combat specialist is better equipped to deal with single combat than single-combat specialist is able to deal with mass combat.
Again, the core skills of a training a mass-combat warrior are the same as training a single combat specialist and remember, single combat was probably still more "popular" than mass ones and many mass ones tended to degenerate to small groups of singles too.
Single combat specialist training became common with the increase of duels before that, it was part of the warrior way from the very beginning.

And :P to you too :P
:D

[SimonM]

Just to be clear, we both do agree that single-combat significantly predates mass warfare, right?

[Lucas]

professional soldiers had plenty of time in the practice yard, including countles hours of one on one matches to equate to more than standard profeciency.

Not all mind you, but the men who were completely addicted to warfare and combat would NOT overlook single combat.

quite the opposite actually.

[mawali]

All military operates as a unit (aka also seaprate units have different functions) because that is the cohesion needed to stop any assault!
You have the barrage from the heavy guns to soften the target, then the main units (groups) to come in from front, back and flanks to meet and destroy the enemy. Again despite being different groups, the command and control still needs coherence i.e. who does what when!

Individual proficiency in H2H is a tool to allow that if a weapon is lost, the individual uses this H2H to find a weapon and use it. H2H never replaces a weapon. Special units use H2H to infiltrate behind lines and cause havoc while exploiting weaknesses and still coordinating with the main assault or probing units. Forward observers behind enemy lines use new technology to "light up" targets while not engaging the enemy!

Same function as the Trojan horse! Get a few soldiers to come in the dark, wait for the right time and sow discontent behind the lines until the large forces embark on their mission.
As someone said coordination and cooperation are part of the 3C's!

[golden arhat]

most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.

would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.

spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.

[David Jamieson]

most soldiers in the roman army were not peasants. they were professional soldiers trained in professional military institutions with one job, to be a soldier, not a part time farmer, not a part time merchant, a full time soldier.

The unit tactics of the roman legions are pretty well documented. Testudos, pike lines, etc. All based on working in teams.

If you join the military now you will be expected to work as part of a team and not as an individual. All you can be is a cog in a larger machine in other words.

That is the way of soldiering. There's no such thing as a one man army, that's marketing nonsense to get you young impressionable guys to get your boots on teh ground in country somewhere. suckers. :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just to be clear, we both do agree that single-combat significantly predates mass warfare, right?

Yes, but in terms of specialized training, training for war predates training fro duels.
But we must remember, liek I said before, training for "mass warfare" began with single combat, truth be told, no matter how "MASS" the battles began it tend to be individualistic in its core.

[sanjuro_ronin]

professional soldiers had plenty of time in the practice yard, including countles hours of one on one matches to equate to more than standard profeciency.

Not all mind you, but the men who were completely addicted to warfare and combat would NOT overlook single combat.

quite the opposite actually.

Yes, very much so.

[sanjuro_ronin]

most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.

would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.

spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.

Spartans and Romans were PROFESSIONAL warrior-soldiers, with Spartans being BORN into a warrior caste.
High level individual skill was highly priced, indeed, that was the focus in terms of early development.

[sanjuro_ronin]

most soldiers in the roman army were not peasants. they were professional soldiers trained in professional military institutions with one job, to be a soldier, not a part time farmer, not a part time merchant, a full time soldier.


Correct.


If you join the military now you will be expected to work as part of a team and not as an individual. All you can be is a cog in a larger machine in other words.

Individual skill was still highly priced and well developed, a group of highly skilled individuals working as a highly skilled unit.

[No_Know]

Individual skill might be most highly prized to the individual. After the group is dimantled or has holes where people had been depended upon group training with kill instinct could have helped but it seems out of its element and that individual skilll at individual reliance fighting might be highly prized.

The Fighter. The Duelist. The Warrior. The Roman soldier. The Spartan. The Greek.

All of these are fighters. The Greeks trained near all, if not all accepted males in wrestling and warfare I might think. They were taught as children and therefore every man in the City-State could fight individually--one-on-one or one getting jumped. Also, as a group or part of a group.

The Greeks had warrior skill yet might have sought pursuits other than warring. Warriors do not need to be trained from youth. adolecents or fuuly mature might be the beginning for warriors. Romans did not all train by rule systematically fighting or warfare. Though by virtue of the living then might have individually aquired understandings. And famnily might have in its defense given what instructions it could. This being so hunting for extinct martialarts (not that there are--what ever was useful was stolen and integrated. The artist dies but useful parts of the art likely continued...Stories of family might also be a source. A mention of a father playing in the afternoon with his son. On mention of a move, a strike, then a description of the intent or effect to inform of the use or intended or potential results of the technique.

The duelist seems a one-on-one fighter if not Warrior. Not grasping getting jumped. Not grasping the mechanics of systemized group attack. I think of Kung fu movies and comic books indicating Formations. At best you might know you No Know and this is position other than preferred. The formations (Chinese, Greek Japanese, Mongolian, English...nomad, barbarian,Viking...) were supposedly staged. Either repeat action or when this happens go to this.

No_Know

[bodhitree]

most soldiers were peasants, and did what equated to pointing a spear in one direction and shouting.
a duelist is better at fighting one on one.
a soldier is better at fighting with an army.
quite simple.

would you learn how to take down one opponent if you were trained as a skirmisher, yes but you wouldnt do so well in civilian combat.
saying that msot soldiers would have the advantage over duelists is just rubbishbecause the two have seperate roles.

spartan and roman society didnt seem to have a peaceful period also, they were always recruiting soldiers to fight somebody. so individual combat and duelling wouldnt have been too good for recruitment, what can they do with a class of young men killing each other? so they promoted duelling as an unworthy persuit, there was no tokugawa period like in japan where everything settleed down and people worried about honour, it wsa just about serving with the army, fighting the germanii or celts etc coming home.


many societies had a 'warrior class', whom were not peasants.

[sanjuro_ronin]

many societies had a 'warrior class', whom were not peasants.

Yes, not just the Spartans or the professional warrior of Rome, or the samurai, but there were warrior castes in India, The Ottoman empire and even in europe of course.
And of course the professional macedonian army.

[SimonM]

On this SR and I agree. Professional armies were not primarily made up of conscripted farmers who could point a spear the right way. In times of considerable war peasant conscripts might potentially have been appended to the army for the purpose of providing warm bodies but most of the great ancient civilizations (particularly the Chinese, the Macedonians and the Romans) had a large, organized, professional army.

My assertation is simply that, all else being equal (time training, size, natural aptitude, etc.) a person trained as a duelist will be more successful in single combat than a professional soldier because of the difference in training regimen. Once we postulate a difference in training (eg: soldier spends greater time training than duelist), aptitude, available technology, etc. the assertation becomes null.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My assertation is simply that, all else being equal (time training, size, natural aptitude, etc.) a person trained as a duelist will be more successful in single combat than a professional soldier because of the difference in training regimen. Once we postulate a difference in training (eg: soldier spends greater time training than duelist), aptitude, available technology, etc. the assertation becomes null.

I counter your assertion and raise you this POV (:D):
Duelist, typically, fought under specific and mostly pre-determined circumstance, with know adversaries and established rules ( no matter how minimal).
He had Time on his side as well as seconds to avoid the issue of surprises outside the norm.
The soldier/warrior had none of that, other than perhaps the location be forknown and certain tactics being assumed.
The duelist had the "luxury" of "feeling out" his adversary and even "time outs" at time (sound familiar?), the soldier had none of that.

I love debates like this :D

[SimonM]

I'd counter that ambush became part of military doctrine precisely because soldiers handle sudden suprise not consideribly better than the average person. Battlefields were largely that... fields.

Battles in forests, mountain passes, etc. were most often slaughters in favor of the home team.

<coughthermopylaecough>

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'd counter that ambush became part of military doctrine precisely because soldiers handle sudden suprise not consideribly better than the average person. Battlefields were largely that... fields.

Battles in forests, mountain passes, etc. were most often slaughters in favor of the home team.

<coughthermopylaecough>

Uh, the Spartan's lost, albeit very well :D

Ambushes work because people lack chi, never see a wudang master get ambushed...:D

Seriously though, Soldiers actually have established tactics for dealing with ambushes, how well they do it depends on the quality of the ambushers and ambushees.
Duelist rarely trained such tactics.

Again, we are on the same page more than we are not, I think I simple have issues with the theory that warriors that were trained to fight in a group had less skilled than those trained to fight one-on-one by simple virtue of "assumption".
We need to remember that, regardless of "ideal tatctics" ancient warfare was still basically, at its core, one-on-one, just multiplied by the 100's.

[SimonM]

Uh, the Spartan's lost, albeit very well :D


They may have lost but they held that pass for way longer than their numbers should have allowed.



Again, we are on the same page more than we are not, I think I simple have issues with the theory that warriors that were trained to fight in a group had less skilled than those trained to fight one-on-one by simple virtue of "assumption".
We need to remember that, regardless of "ideal tatctics" ancient warfare was still basically, at its core, one-on-one, just multiplied by the 100's.

The assumption is that when one has to train additional material than one's training time is split and one will likely not be as well trained in areas that a specialist has concentrated on. That's, IMO, a fair assumption.

[sanjuro_ronin]

They may have lost but they held that pass for way longer than their numbers should have allowed.

ANd Spartans were highly trained in individual combat as well as group tactics.


The assumption is that when one has to train additional material than one's training time is split and one will likely not be as well trained in areas that a specialist has concentrated on. That's, IMO, a fair assumption.

A fair assumption, IF one views the types of training as either/or and not compliments.
Remember, a legionaire (using him as an example again), only trained as a group when training group tactics, which he could only do when in a group, he probably did as much if not more "individual training" as group, logistics being what they are.

[Lucas]

In regards to Rome, 'peasants' could not be soldiers. if you became a soldier you were awarded property and land, land that peasants worked for you. its a class thing. you couldnt be both.

Peasants in rome were almost slaves (servi). they could not own land, they worked and lived on the land that was owned by someone in the military or someone of higher status. often times the servi lived in far better conditions than the peasants.

Until Tiberius started a reform that would allow peasants, in some cases to own small lots of land. but then at that point they would be drafted into the military...this didnt even go over very well, as you can imagine. this took cash out of the pockets of the elite.

there were something like 20 or more ranks in the roman military.

your intelligence and ability to advance determined your rank.

legionnairs being one of the lowest ranks were still required to have great physical fitness. everyone in the military was required to be able to run a long distance and fight a battle afterwards.

among other things the entire army was required to practice fencing every day. yes, one on one practice. every day. You can imagine that some of these guys would get pretty good after a few years.

so as you showed your own ability, you would recieve advancement based upon that.

so likely the higher the ranking you had, the better fighter you were, unless you went into a specialized field.

The Peoples History of Rome is a good read if you can get around to it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In regards to Rome, 'peasants' could not be soldiers. if you became a soldier you were awarded property and land, land that peasants worked for you. its a class thing. you couldnt be both.

Peasants in rome were almost slaves (servi). they could not own land, they worked and lived on the land that was owned by someone in the military or someone of higher status. often times the servi lived in far better conditions than the peasants.

Until Tiberius started a reform that would allow peasants, in some cases to own small lots of land. but then at that point they would be drafted into the military...this didnt even go over very well, as you can imagine. this took cash out of the pockets of the elite.

there were something like 20 or more ranks in the roman military.

your intelligence and ability to advance determined your rank.

legionnairs being one of the lowest ranks were still required to have great physical fitness. everyone in the military was required to be able to run a long distance and fight a battle afterwards.

among other things the entire army was required to practice fencing every day. yes, one on one practice. every day. You can imagine that some of these guys would get pretty good after a few years.

so as you showed your own ability, you would recieve advancement based upon that.

so likely the higher the ranking you had, the better fighter you were, unless you went into a specialized field.

The Peoples History of Rome is a good read if you can get around to it.

Correct, after all, I was there.:D

[Lucas]

Correct, after all, I was there.:D

You crazy centurion you!

[sanjuro_ronin]

You crazy centurion you!

Praetorian if you please, ah the stories of Caligula I could tell you :p

[Lucas]

rofl, how prestigeous.

[sanjuro_ronin]

rofl, how prestigeous.

Well, that worse job you could get with Caligula was clean up duty, bit I digress.

Back to the subject at hand.

[bakxierboxer]

Seriously though, Soldiers actually have established tactics for dealing with ambushes, how well they do it depends on the quality of the ambushers and ambushees.
Duelist rarely trained such tactics.

....... Miyamoto Musashi.........

........ Sun Tzu..............

[sanjuro_ronin]

....... Miyamoto Musashi.........

........ Sun Tzu..............

Well, Musashi learned the hard way about ambushes :D, so yes, Iam sure he trained for them after that.
Sun Tzu dealt more with mass warfare if I recall.

[SimonM]

....... Miyamoto Musashi.........

........ Sun Tzu..............


Musashi I haven't read this decade.
Sunzi's advice about ambushes was basically "don't let this happen to you".

[Lucas]

suntzu/sunbian would use the method of traveling across paths that limit your exposure to possiblities of ambush, (the lay of the land and utilizing this was always emphasised by suntzu/sunbian) aside from that, if you are entering a landscape that increases this exposure, you would situate your forces to be able to deal with the ambush most effectively were it to happen. one must be expectant and plan accordingly.

musashi...well, both of these men were definately exceptions rather than norms...yet musashi definately dealt more in the realm of single combat than mass warfare.

[SimonM]

A lot of that was actually expounded upon in sunzi commentaries and not in the core text.

[Lucas]

A lot of that was actually expounded upon in sunzi commentaries and not in the core text.

true, though that was the way of much chinese text very simple, and often left very open for inperitation, though when a sharp mind comes to these conclusions, we can be sure the signs that lead them there were purposfull. these tactitions were not writing for the common person but for other bright military leaders. those that could pull out the full meaning of the often cryptic writings. not much was ever laid out in simplistic terms anyone could understand.

the explinations and commentary are generally an "interpetation" of the text, to reveal much of what was actually meant by they often abstract and limited text.

for instance, often times such things would be said as "avoid deaths ground"

this type of comment means much, 'deaths ground' being specific types of landscape in conjunction with many other aspects of troop deployment, strength of force, enemy location, formation, etc.

many times 5 words could fill pages.

if we take thomas cleary's work for instance. his commentary comes from one who has spent his life studying these works. we can be sure his interpritation of many of these texts are very instightful, and often hit very near the mark the authors were.

as confucius had said, when he speaks of a topic with someone, he will bring up one corner of the subject, if the one he is speaking with cannot bring up one of the other 3 corners on their own, he would no longer speak with them.

ive noticed this to be a common trend among much chinese literature of old.

[SimonM]

Fair enough. However many of the commentaries on Sunzi are military discourses of significance enough that it is best to examine them separate from the core book in part out of respect for the commentators.

[sanjuro_ronin]

At least there was literature though, one can only imagine the systems of european and western combat that were lost due to not catalogue the techniques and principles of the system.
In many ways TCMA has a lot to owe guys like Lam Tsai Wing who took the first step in putting their teaching in writing and drawings.

[David Jamieson]

At least there was literature though, one can only imagine the systems of european and western combat that were lost due to not catalogue the techniques and principles of the system.
In many ways TCMA has a lot to owe guys like Lam Tsai Wing who took the first step in putting their teaching in writing and drawings.

not much is lost actually. you can dig up quite a lot of it online or in various libraries.

the thing about western military combat or european military combat, as far as military stuff went, it was about escalation, so classical weapons and h2h was basically obsoleted by small arms, artillery, mobile artillery and of course bombs and so on.

[sanjuro_ronin]

not much is lost actually. you can dig up quite a lot of it online or in various libraries.

the thing about western military combat or european military combat, as far as military stuff went, it was about escalation, so classical weapons and h2h was basically obsoleted by small arms, artillery, mobile artillery and of course bombs and so on.

You don't find much before the 14th century, if that.
Sure you have generalizations and such, but nothing really comparable to the Asian MA.
The various schools of swordsmanship tended to be divided between the french and italian, with the spanish more interested in mathematical theory than practicality.
In terms of small hand or H2H we have almost nil.

[Lucas]

Fair enough. However many of the commentaries on Sunzi are military discourses of significance enough that it is best to examine them separate from the core book in part out of respect for the commentators.

toche' ;):D

[Lucas]

wait a second. did we all just make a real discussion last up to 4 pages on this forum :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

wait a second. did we all just make a real discussion last up to 4 pages on this forum :eek:

Sshhh, you'll wake up the trolls, they've been scared by the tags to this thread.

[David Jamieson]

You don't find much before the 14th century, if that.
Sure you have generalizations and such, but nothing really comparable to the Asian MA.
The various schools of swordsmanship tended to be divided between the french and italian, with the spanish more interested in mathematical theory than practicality.
In terms of small hand or H2H we have almost nil.

you won't find much prior to the 14th century in asian martial arts either.

for instance, it is said that the shaolin had their martial; practice at their temple as far back as the Tang dynasty (c:700-900 ce), but there isn't really anything definitive that indicates that this is 100&#37; certain. Kind of like you have King Arthur's legend being from around this period as well falling the collapse of the roman empire.

check out these links in this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_military_manuals.

But, I think the linchpin to it all is simply the literacy factor. Much martial arts in most societies was developed and exchanged in an environment of illiterates.

the rate of literacy we have today is unprecedented. Back then, you had to be pretty special to get any sort of education at all and most of your time was spent in the cycle of subsistence living.