the general assertion is that tma has been used in real fights to kill people in the past, not that it was used en masse.
The battlefield pedigree for these arts is questionable also. Yes swords, knives, bow and arrow were used in the battle field, however the way they were used is not the way they are taught and used in a individual martial art. Group combat requires a whole different set of skills than that of the kendoist in a one on one competition. Were some of the techniques drawn from battlefield skills, yes, however footwork would be totally different. The problem to a large degree is that movies portray early combat as a bunch of one on one duals happening at the same time. The reality was large groups of people fighting as units and multiple units fighting as part of a whole. For example your shield may not be intended to protect you, but rather the person standing next to you and you would be protected by someone else’s shield.
Originally Posted by ChickenBeakFist
Anyone remember that Human Weapon episode on Pankration where they were going on about Spartans holding off Persians with double leg takedowns and neck cranks?
LOL i have to watch that one again. its classic
Originally Posted by The Question
TMA with proven battlefield effectiveness...archery.
It is for reasons like this that the battlefield argument is completely worthless.
"Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of mediaeval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 N (80 lbf) and possibly more than 650 N(143 lbf) with some high-end estimates at 900N. Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
Unless you want to be some kind of mutant freak, you can't use these reasons.
Edit: I wrote this post before I saw the above post. Didn't mean to do that.
Right, like I said, "battlefield origins." I'm not under the impression that any battle ever looked like 10,000 olympic fencing matches going on at once. They're sports that evolved from principles developed during times of war. Claiming to be "battlefield tested" may be overstating the case, but I don't recall ever seeing the aforementioned arts being advertised that way. I'm just saying it's not completely far-fetched to make that claim.
Originally Posted by M1K3
And which style claims that its unarmed techniques were used by unarmed soldiers during an unarmed war? You make some interesting points, but I have the nagging feeling that you're attempting to refute arguments that were never presented.
Archery as used in target shooting or even hunting is different that archery on the battlefield. An archer who is target shooting will shoot a set number of arrows at a target from a stationary position. They are usually shooting 3 or 6 arrows at a time. In battle the archer had to be able to maneuver with foot and mounted troops to provide support, be able to fire large number of arrows over a long period of time and to fire in rhythm with the other archers to improve the effectiveness of the shoots. They often worked in teams of three with a back up archer and shield bearer and an apprentice to feed them arrows from a barrel. The team would often have several barrels of arrows with them as they moved across the battle field. So shooting an arrow is a part of a combat archers skill but there was a whole lot more to it.
No he isn't.
Originally Posted by ChickenBeakFist
No, I'm not going to search the threads out. I know I have had the argument raised at least 5 times this year. We are only a little over a week into 2008.
**** yeah. Just goes to show, you can still lose when you have teh mount.
Originally Posted by Grey Owl
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO