Shaolin: birthplaces of all martial arts

[Richie]

Is this really correct? Can't it be argued that societies like Egypt, Rome even China had set swinging and stabbing patterns for swords and spears (not Britney), and attack patterns? Isn't that one of the reasons why Rome was so great in the old days?

Wouldn't be more correct to say Shaolin is the birthplace of martial arts as we know them now or something

[Royal Dragon]

Yup

[David Jamieson]

If you can find an egyptian war art then all the best

The sun rises and sets on the Martial arts of Shaolin BECAUSE they have survived.

cheers

[MasterKiller]

I think the problem here is that you have to distinguish what "Martial Art" means. There have always been people learning to use swords, knives, clubs, and fighting/wrestling techniques. Martial techniques are probably as old as man.

However, we refer to Chinese systems as "Martial Arts" because the emphasis is not necessarily on clubbing your opponent to death as quickly as possible. Shaolin, in particular, developed the notion that Martial practice could be used for personal and spiritual growth. So, to say that Shaolin is the birthplace of Martial Arts means that when fighting took on a deeper side, became a vehicle for epistomological discovery, and became an "ART", it happened at Shaolin.

[Richie]

Not really. The Romans had set striking pattern (forms) that the soilders learned. They also had attack patterns. I think it was organized enough to be consider a style.

In Martial Art, I mean war art.

[MasterKiller]

Did you read my post?

Did Roman training sets have anything to do with Self-Cultivation? That is where the "art" comes in.

Monkeys can swing thigh-bones at each other all day long, and even memorize patterns of doing so. That doesn't make it a "martial art."

Art implies intent, and intent implies meaning. Without meaning, martial techniques are just techniques...that doesn't make them any more or less effective. It just means that an Art has more implied meaning than a technique.

It's the difference between painting a house and painting a Van Gogh. Both serve a purpose, but one has more intrinsic personal meaning than the other.

[Richie]

Whatever dude. I really dont think the Romans were swinging swords around like monkeys. The Germanic trides were wild and unorganized, and thats why Rome conquered a large part of Europe.

Read up on Raman tactics, especially their shield and spear fighting.

Painting a house and painting Van Gogh? The Roman army beat almost everyone, and other countries were taking turns beatin up and conquering China long after Kung fu spread outside of Shaolin.

Am I stating that Roman warfare is better? No, but it was an organized war art. Was it as complexed as Shaolin? No, it wasn't . However, they learn techniques, short patterns, and how to fight together. They learn quick and were good fighters.

[MasterKiller]

Again, that has nothing to do with an "Art."

That the Roman's had exceptional technique is not questioned. But those techniques were for warfare and conquest, not personal or spiritual cultivation.

To call what they did "Martial Arts" is a misnomer. Complexity of form and technique does not quantify something as an "art." Just as organized practice does not constitute a martial art. The intent of the practice is the quantifying factor.

If your intent is to get really good at killing people, you are practicing martial technqiues. If your intent is on developing yourself through martial practice, then you are practicing a martial art, which is precisely what Shaolin did.

[freedom76]

I think one thing that has been overlooked is the greco-roman style wrestling. That was about personal growth. The ancient olympics were about personal growth and public honor, as well as being pleasing to the gods. American Indians also had styles of wrestling and fighting that had spirtual intents in them as well as the ability to conquering the neighbors. Any civilization that is recorded in history had to have someway to defend themselves or conquer others, otherwise we probably wouldn't have heard of them. Were all these "arts"? Tough call, but I'd imagine that they had competions (performances?) to determine the best and the bravest. What about gladiators of ancient Rome? Artisitic performance killing-or-be-killed. That's not my cup of tea, but I think a strong case can be made that it was a martial art along with the greco-roman style of wrestling.

[Jabb]

There was kung fu in China before shaolin, but nowadays almost every kung fu system has got some influence from shaolin.

But if we look MA for example in Korea, some of the korean arts have been on "developement" for 4000 years, way longer than shaolin.

[MasterKiller]

think one thing that has been overlooked is the greco-roman style wrestling. That was about personal growth. The ancient olympics were about personal growth and public honor, as well as being pleasing to the gods. American Indians also had styles of wrestling and fighting that had spirtual intents in them as well as the ability to conquering the neighbors.

I'll give you those. However, since these systems did not have the enormous influence Shaolin maintained, I still credit Shaolin with developing the martial arts.

What about gladiators of ancient Rome? Artisitic performance killing-or-be-killed. That's not my cup of tea, but I think a strong case can be made that it was a martial art along with the greco-roman style of wrestling

Pleasing the crowd is not exactly what I would call spiritual growth. Theatrics is not the same as artistic intent.

There was kung fu in China before shaolin, but nowadays almost every kung fu system has got some influence from shaolin.

But if we look MA for example in Korea, some of the korean arts have been on "developement" for 4000 years, way longer than shaolin.

But was their intent personal growth through practice, or national defense? Intent is the key to calling something an "art" or not. If all they are doing is practicing fighting to defend themselves from others, then it is no different from what everyone else was doing.

[GeneChing]

Just like the Bodhidharma myth on the other thread, Shaolin is the symbolic birthplace. Certainly there has been other martial styles that developed outside of the Shaolin lineage. Usually, in the West, we have a Eurocentric view of history, but in martial arts, which are more dominent in the East, the perspective is Asiacentric. And China is the source of a lot of Asian history.

The "art" vs. practical plagues martial arts and it probably always will in the era of firearms. There are those who beleive only in practical fighting techniques, and those who hate wushu for its floweriness. There are those who carry weapons every where they go out of some strange martial induced paranoia. Now, for me personally, I do volunteer work with combative patients, so the practical side is very iimportant to me. But I actually came into the martial arts from a passion I have for swords and ancient weapons. It's not really very street practical to learn sword today - I do it as a spiritual practice. This is where the "art" issue is important to the symbolism of Shaolin as the cradle of MA. Art means that you are aspiring to something higher, something spiritual, divine or estatic. The practice becomes a meditation. That's what Bodhidharma brings to the martial world - fighting as a spiritual practice.

Remember, you are not a human being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a human experience. I plaguerized that off of yesterday's ginger tea bag...

[MasterKiller]

yeah, what Gene said.

[Richie]

I respect your knowledge of the martial arts, however, I must disagree. Not all martial arts have spirital side. After movies like kick boxer came out I asked some Thai friends about it. One's brother Thai was Thai boxer. They explained that it came from farmers. However, it is considered a martial art. Some even call the sweet science (boxing) a martial art. Also, what about Judo? Even in China, there are styles that were developed for and/or from warfare. A guy would have a fight, and then reflect on what he did.

Most people today don't practise the spirital side of the art, so they are not doing martial arts.


Shaolin is very important to martial arts. , but I think people sweat it too much.

please excuse spelling and grammar.

[David Jamieson]

i agree with the teabag.

the roman experience, for the sake of argument could very well have had a spiritual aspect, particulalry in the sense of the gladiators.

but that was a long time ago. There are rendezvous clubs and re-enactment clubs that are into that eras weaponry and armour, but they certainly aren't slaves that are pitched against each other to the death!

cheers