I'm not saying they didn't lose eventually. Rofl. They did. Beside that, a lot of people died grizzly deaths in close quarters during WW2. It's not like you don't run out of bullets or get cut off from your people, etc. Keep in mind that I'm not claiming to be a historical authority. These are things that I've picked up from books etc. The first one I got from Dan Inosanto's only book, and the second one I don't quite remember. There were supply shortages all over the place. Anyway, that's beside the point though. I bought it up to MENTION THAT THIS WAS WHY WE KEEP OUR FORM VERY TIGHT, and also to explain the effectiveness of actually using your other hand for something and the advantage of applying the same principal to using any other weapon. It seems like a bunch of people missed the important part. Who really cares about the history? We could save that for some other thread.

That's all I was trying to get across, in accordance with the TOPIC, so if you guys don't mind, let's not start an argument on an unimportant tangent.

I just explained that in my last post up there. Having two sticks doesn't mean attack attack attack all the time. Being unable to see that there's an almost simultaneous attack AND defense is a limited understanding of sinawali.

how long have you studied fma, and what styles? were any of them from pampanga, or luzon at all? or is all of your knowledge from sinawali from inosanto drills?


I also used the wrong wording up there. I know already that this is how the Philipinos beat the spanish for like 300 years, and that's mostly because they used the check in the middle to stop them from retaliating with their swords. That's also a testament to why the check hand is so important, IF you practice and can fit it in between strikes, it will be one of the best things that ever happened to your stick fighting.

please explain the technical differences between spanish and filipino swordfighting, then give your historical sources.


If you didn't know already, Japanese soldiers STILL carried katanas into battle during World War 2. The reason for trenches was to counter act the much longer range of the katana in comparison to the machetes and knives that the philipinos had. A narrow trench is the wrong place to draw a long sword.

again, i'm waiting for the source for this, and the name of the style that was created for that situation.


Anyway, that's beside the point though. I bought it up to MENTION THAT THIS WAS WHY WE KEEP OUR FORM VERY TIGHT, and also to explain the effectiveness of actually using your other hand for something and the advantage of applying the same principal to using any other weapon. It seems like a bunch of people missed the important part. Who really cares about the history? We could save that for some other thread.

you brought up your 'history' in order to verify your claims about the value of particular movements; it's not off-topic.

as for importance, the history of the philippines and its martial arts is already cloudy enough with such a dearth of historical records, with almost none for monolingual anglophones, to just start spouting off bullshit and passing it off as historical fact. much less to do so on a place like bullshido - seems pretty damn important to me.


tim

Also, if you haven't already, look up Inosanto. Anyone studying FMA, especially in the states, ought to know who he is.

If you've ever seen a conquistador you'll immediately know the difference between Philipino and Spanish sword fighting at the time. The same styles and techniques that came out of Europe's middle ages are very close to a great many styles from the Renaissance period. Go read Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements. If you can find a copy of Arms and Armour by Howard L. Blackmore, it's immediately obvious that the Spanish also used the same weapons as the rest of Europe.

AGAIN I used the wrong word. Not developed, modified. I'm STILL explaining that we keep our form much tighter because it's easy to defend and continue attacking. This was the reason that was given to me. I'm STILL using the SAME reason to explain to you the reason for my technique and you're STILL missing that part and focusing on some other irrelevant detail. We're still talking technique, not so much history.

When did technique take a back seat to lineage? Any style of combat evolves over time, so lineage is irrelevant too. A style isn't going to stay the same forever, some people change small things, some styles borrow principals from other places. Why would you bother bringing that up?

I didn't use history to verify the effectiveness of the technique. I actually explained many times in detail why some of the things we do are done. I used the history in a 'this is a side note, but etc' way. Now maybe it's the way I type, but I'm PRETTY sure that I explained all of these things on the first page and you're still hung up on the wrong things. This is why I'm telling you that the perceived reasoning that I was given isn't important at all. I actually explained them in the technical sense to begin with. So why are you still trying to get on my case about the part that doesn't matter?

And I understand if you missed all that. Honestly, I skim over a lot of stuff too despite typing a lot myself. :P

Beside that, just be aware that there are over 7,000 styles of Arnis, and at the end of the day, a lineage means nothing. Now before you fly off the handle, go read Modern Arnis by Remy Presas.

If you've ever seen a conquistador you'll immediately know the difference between Philipino and Spanish sword fighting at the time. The same styles and techniques that came out of Europe's middle ages are very close to a great many styles from the Renaissance period. Go read Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements. If you can find a copy of Arms and Armour by Howard L. Blackmore, it's immediately obvious that the Spanish also used the same weapons as the rest of Europe.
Spanish fencing is actually much different than Medieval swordsmanship, both in techniques and weapons, and Medieval swordsmanship is different than Renaissance swordsmanship.

I believe in Silver's work, he speaks about how the Spanish fencing method is different from other methods. Period pieces criticized destreza (spanish style fencing) as overly mathematical and theoretical. Anyway, the style involves a very outstretched guard and sideways stance, something not really big in Medieval styles (it only makes sense with a light one handed sword). Now, aside from that, destreza has two forms, one of which was a simplified military version. This was the version taught to the Filipino Guardia Civils, who were trained by the Spaniards for Police and military duties (and where the Spanish fencing influence on FMA would have come from). Here's an interesting pic from 1886 (yes, quite a good deal after the Spanish had arrived):
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=62607&stc=1
The thing that immediately stood out to me was the estoca and parada, which are the 2 basic stances in my style of arnis.

Okay, let me rephrase: reteaching myself to use shorter stances has helped my stickfighting, in a few ways:
leg defense- In my opinion, the best way to defend the legs against most attacks is the Illustrisimo cross step or front leg replacement. IMO this is superior to using your stick to block because it gives you the opportunity to strike the head or weapon arm as its coming out and they're committing to an attack. These techniques are slowed by an excessively wide and low stance.

General mobility- in a shorter stance, I can move in any direction quickly without the movement biases of most wide, low stances. I can shoot off across any of the triangular angles. In fact, when doing leg replacement steps they're a lot easier with a short stance, and these need to be quick if they're going to work.

I like how the short stance can also turn right into a sprint.

Now, there's also advantages to a lower, wider stance in weapon fighting too (the fencer's lunge, or in krabi krabong, for example), but I feel that they're temporary flashes accompanying strikes, not standard guard or movement type stances, and that's the difference.

if we were closer, i could show you. if you get out to the midwest or southern florida, or if i get down to so cal, we can meet up. a wider stance doesn't limit mobility or explosiveness, you just have to change the way you think about it.


tim

When did technique take a back seat to lineage?

when you made an assertion, i asked for a source, and the only thing i got out of you was that your teacher told you. you can't stand on the authority of your instructor, then whine about being asked about your lineage when called on it.


Beside that, just be aware that there are over 7,000 styles of Arnis

what makes you think i'm not aware of the breadth of filipino martial arts? i've been continually asking you what styles you're talking about when you make your claims.


tim

Spanish fencing is a lot more current. xD So called "Broad swords" were used all over Europe prior to the renaissance, and Spain is in Europe. You'll find all kinds of old books written by people from France, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. A conquistador is more like a knight. They used swords and shields and eventually guns. I'm pretty interested in Spanish fencing though, now that you've mentioned it. I'm going to look into that.

Anyway, tim_stl, I wish we COULD meet up and discuss this stuff. While I do have a car, my brother constantly has it and even that won't matter come next month. I'm going back to college in the Chicago Loop, so I won't really even have a need for a car.

Either way, maybe it would've helped if I decided to use the wording " This is why it is thought that we do x " and this would not have been nearly as much of an annoyance. Honestly, we just call it South East Asian Combatives or just use some general term like Arnis, or Escrima, or (very rarely) Kali. At times we even practice Krabi Krabong and the same principals still seem to carry over. At a certain point, though, the style doesn't matter any more. Like I was saying, we have a lot of people who just completely turn it into their own thing, boxing principals, Kung Fu principals, Silat principals and anything else you can think of, and after they adapt it to their preferences, they just seem to make a quantum leap in their effectiveness.

Now, aside from that, destreza has two forms, one of which was a simplified military version.

more than two, depending on the time frame and how you slice it. it's not quite accurate to say that one was a simplified military version. it's more accurate to call it common, as it's the pre-existing one from which the 'verdadera' arose. conceptually, it's much simpler, but technically, the 'verdadera' destreza is simpler.


The thing that immediately stood out to me was the estoca and parada, which are the 2 basic stances in my style of arnis.

does that style have any relation to villabrille? as far as i can tell, the usage of those terms always lead back to him. (btw, it's estocada in the book, and the terms in spanish fencing mean much different things than they do in villabrille's arnis).


tim

Anyway, tim_stl, I wish we COULD meet up and discuss this stuff. While I do have a car, my brother constantly has it and even that won't matter come next month. I'm going back to college in the Chicago Loop, so I won't really even have a need for a car.

i'm no stranger to chicago - i go up there at least twice a year, and have been up there twice in the past three months. i'll be up there again in the spring. in the meantime, stop guessing, stop taking the 'history' that you're fed by fma instructors as gospel, and do some research.


tim

I'm jumping in here as I agree with a lot of what's been said. Speaking from my own experience in teaching and training in numerous Philipino arts. I can say that stick, knife, and empty hand do follow the same basic concepts. However application for each definitely varies. Distance is a key factor. The longer the weapon the more distance you need. Impact vs edged weapon is also a factor with the amount of power needed to do damage. Swinging your empty hand the same way you would swing a weapon only works if for the most part all you're throwing is Hammerfist strikes.

With that in mind I have seen people very skilled at empty hand use weapons very well. Boxers punching with a knife in their hand would do a lot of damage. The only thing is none of them practice it, rightfully so, as it's not what they're training to do.

Footwork was mentioned and for the street application I teach it all the same. As for competition it's different with lead leg and power hand being different than using a weapon. The one benefit to swinging a stick is increased hand speed for empty hand techniques. This could also be accomplished by using a small dumbbell as well though.

I've never heard of Philipino trench warfare but I'd be interested in seeing something about it.

I've never heard of Philipino trench warfare but I'd be interested in seeing something about it.

agreed - I'd never heard of trench warfare in WWII, in any theatre. Widespread use of aircraft pretty much doomed sitting in a trench, fighting a similarly entrenched foe.

Spanish fencing is a lot more current. xD So called "Broad swords" were used all over Europe prior to the renaissance, and Spain is in Europe.
But when the Spanish became involved in the PI, they weren't carrying broadswords so much as weapons more like this:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=62806&stc=1

And the spear/lance has always been a pretty important weapon too.


more than two, depending on the time frame and how you slice it. it's not quite accurate to say that one was a simplified military version. it's more accurate to call it common, as it's the pre-existing one from which the 'verdadera' arose. conceptually, it's much simpler, but technically, the 'verdadera' destreza is simpler.
Interesting. Do you recommend any sources on Spanish fighting arts?


does that style have any relation to villabrille? as far as i can tell, the usage of those terms always lead back to him. (btw, it's estocada in the book, and the terms in spanish fencing mean much different things than they do in villabrille's arnis).


tim
Yeah, my teacher was one of Ben Largusa's students in the 70s, became a guro of the system, then became a student of Cacoy Canete in the 80s, so there's a bit of a mishmash.

Yeah, just from the picture, it appears that parada and estoc(ad)a are different from the aris terms; I just thought it was an interesting note. Do you know what the Spanish terms mean? Does estoca have anything to do with estoc (thrusting sword)?


if we were closer, i could show you. if you get out to the midwest or southern florida, or if i get down to so cal, we can meet up. a wider stance doesn't limit mobility or explosiveness, you just have to change the way you think about it.


tim
I'd like that. I recognize that a low stance can be used quickly and explosively (9 years of CLF and being a fencing enthusiast has shown me lots of examples), but there's a time and a place, and kung fu and TSD taught me that the time and place was all the time and everywhere, and untraining that has proven very useful to me.

Well... Here you go. http://www.britannica.com.ph/government/trench-warfare-381117.html

It's in their philippines section, but even that doesn't say a terrible lot.

At the onset of war, the Filipino army used the conventional method of trench warfare and open charges. If you’ve seen movies like The Patriot and movies about Napoleon, you would have an idea of how the Filipino army fought foolishly marching head high in open battle fields before they finally resorted to guerilla warfare.

http://antipinoy.com/the-army-of-the-first-philippine-republic/

There's another.

http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/battlingbastards.html

And that one seems to be the full story.

Trench warfare extract from Britannica Online.

Warfare in which the opposing sides attack, counterattack, and defend from sets of trenches dug into the ground. It was developed by Vauban, Sébastien Le Prestre in the 17th century for laying siege to fortresses. Its defensive use was first institutionalized as a tactic during the American Civil War. It reached its highest development in World War I. Little used in World War II, it reappeared in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. A typical construction consisted of two to four parallel trenches, each dug in a zigzag, protected by sandbags, and floored with wooden planks. The parallel trenches were connected by a series of communication trenches dug roughly perpendicular to them. The first row was fronted by barbed wire and contained machine-gun emplacements; the rear trenches housed most of the troops. Increased use of tanks marked the end of trench warfare, since tanks were invulnerable to the machine-gun and rifle fire used by entrenched soldiers.

I was actually looking at this very article when you responded. Where does it say that trenches were used in the Philipines?

I was actually looking at this very article when you responded. Where does it say that trenches were used in the Philipines?


It's in their Philipines section. I was just posting stuff as I was finding it.