Is swordfighting a martial art?

**Draggor** · Posted On: 9/04/2004 3:42pm

Alright:

Martial = refering to war
Art = stylistic expression

I don't see how knights were "expressing" themselves when they killed people using swords. If you use the full potential of the definition of martial, use the full potential of the word art with it. For example do not say everything relating to war is automatically a martial art without saying everything which is a stylistic expression is a martial art (this is not specifically to you ronin). Of course many martial arts use swords or other weapons, but that doesn't automatically mean every time someone uses a weapon he is performing a martial art. Furthermore (Spunky) I definitely don't see where martial arts extend to rifles. I haven't heard of any martial arts that use rifles, but maybe they exist. In any case go up to a marine with an AK 47 and ask him if he is expressing himself stylistically.

In case you don't see where I'm going with this: I would like to clarify how far you consider the martial aspect of the martial arts to extend. If you ask the average person on the street if a knight was a martial artist, I'm pretty convinced most of them would say no. The fact that they don't practice martial arts doesn't make them less eligble to judge the meaning of a word.

**KageReaper** · Posted On: 9/04/2004 4:30pm

Death is an artform like any other...its brushes have evolved from the hands to blunt or bladed weapons, the bow, the rifle, tanks, bombs and its perfection will continue. It even has its own odd beauty to some. A swordsman expresses himself through his blade with every stroke. He aspires for precision and perfection. The same is to be said for a markmanship in the military or law enforcement...the almighty one shot-one kill. They are expressing themselves in their own style.

Oh, if you want a marine to stylistically express himself with an AK.....give him a moving target. It will be a thing of beauty to see what he does to it.

WELL , Back to the law books.........I'm so freakin bored, can't you tell?? lol.. I need a drink

**Draggor** · Posted On: 9/05/2004 12:05am

Then why does almost no one in the world consider using guns a martial art?

**Moleculo** · Posted On: 9/05/2004 12:48am

Any bloody fool can pull a trigger.

This young lad is practicing martial art with no guidance; a very bad idea!

**Toby Christensen** · Posted On: 9/05/2004 2:10am

Of course swordfighting is a martial art; there ARE old European manuals on it, y'know!

**Spunky** · Posted On: 9/05/2004 6:49pm

Draggor said:

Alright:

Martial = refering to war
Art = stylistic expression

NO! NO NONON ONONO! Just... No! Art is NOT simply stylistic expression, especially if you insist on using "the full potential of the word art."

[b]art
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

...

5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

6.
a) A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

b) A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

7.
a) Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

b) Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

8. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

I don't see how knights were "expressing" themselves when they killed people using swords.

They were probably expressing something along the lines of "DIIE MOTHERUCKER AND GET OFF OF MY LAAAND **** DON'T STICK THAT IN MEE DIIIIIEEE!!!"

I haven't heard of any martial arts that use rifles, but maybe they exist.

I'm pretty sure most armies have shooting and bayonet instructors, manuals, training grounds, drills and exercises, combat simulations, and pretty much everything else in a martial arts system.

If you ask the average person on the street if a knight was a martial artist, I'm pretty convinced most of them would say no. The fact that they don't practice martial arts doesn't make them less eligble to judge the meaning of a word.

Of course they would. But then the average person is completely ignorant of the subject, so in that respect they are perfectly ELIGIBLE to judge the meaning but that doesn't make them RIGHT.

**Spunky** · Posted On: 9/06/2004 3:05am

Are your parents still in custody of you after dropping you so much?

**Spunky** · Posted On: 9/06/2004 3:17am

As far as "art" goes, I'm three years into my degree from the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. Between that, my practice of martial arts, and at least cursory research into the fighting styles of Europe through several books and online resources, I would put my qualification to present an adequate definition of the phrase "martial art" a little above that of most people I meet in day to day life.

If you are really curious about how history describes the methods employed by western soldiers, I can recommend a couple sources to start with.

The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe by Sydney Anglo
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300...13#reader-page

And The Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts which has an excellent online library of martial arts (as they describe) manuscripts dating back to the 11th century.

So maybe I'm not qualified to make such radical interpretations of the phrase, I mostly got it from sources like this. And the dictionary. So take it up with them.

**Draggor** · Posted On: 9/06/2004 7:20am

If you ever look at the definition in a dictionary of a martial art it is about half the time considered weaponless, which is ignorant, so dictionary definitions don't mean jack.

Those two books see it that way but read almost all history books school and none will say the martial arts of renaissance times.

You kinda ignored the part about modern military, and never mentioned anything about me repeating ronin's arguments.

I really don't see why a degree in art would make you more knowledgeable about martial arts. They aren't really related that closely: painting and fighting...

And research into the fighting styles of Europe, which based on the books that agree with you, you put as a martial art, does not mean you know more about martial arts.

Even if I'm wrong about knights, which I definitely might be because I don't care about the subject that much, you still have not proven in any way at all the part where today's modern military is a martial art.

**Sancho** · Posted On: 9/06/2004 9:33am

Most Asian martial arts teach (or used to teach) weapons. Kung fu is full of weapons forms. Aikido still uses bokken in classes. These are the weapons they were using to make war on eachother.

So when a chinese guy in silk pajamas learns the skills to kill a people with a weapon that was a pretty good warrior's weapon some hundreds of years ago, it's a martial art; but when an american guy in fatigues learns the skills that are good for killing people nowadays, it isn't a martial art?