Does chivalry belong in martial arts?

[Barrett]

That was a good post. But you're also sounding like another Mongol apologist.

I have nowhere depicted Ghenghis Khan or the Mongols as stupid or unintelligent, or stereotyped them as savages. I have actually painted them as ruthless, lightning fast warriors led by a calculating warlord who utilized brutal policies to expand his empire, which in turn influenced how his warriors treated civilians and enemies on the battlefield.

I have great respect for both generals. And I don't view them as "Good/Bad" at all we established that in previous posts.

Stop jumping on the W. Rabbit bandwagon, and try reading the entire thread before posting bullshit.

Oh I guess I just dreamed up the "Genghis Khan=Hitler" analogies you posted earlier. You might have said that you don't judge them as good/bad, but everything else you posted contradicted that. It really doesn't bother me if you have something against the Mongols, it just annoys me that someone who is so severely misinformed about something would continue to act like an authority on the subject.

I'd rather be a Mongol apologist then another Ancient Greek fellator :jerkit2yf .

[W. Rabbit]

Because i sarcastically answered the entire debate in the thread, or because you foolishly took me seriously?

There isn't a single poster here who doesn't train through a warrior code. We all respect our training partners and our opponents, both in our thoughts and actions. This is silly. Chivalry is an antiquated form a universal ideology.

Edit: Anybody who trains a style that can actually hurt people, that is. I guess people living out power trip no contact kung fu fantasies might have something to discuss about the idea.

You took me seriously? I thought you were placekicking there..

[W. Rabbit]

The first real secular "martial code" (meaning, a code of honor among soldiers) in Europe would probably be, and this is no joke, "one for all, and all for one". - The motto that Alexandre Dumas gives his musketeers in 1844; I am more into literature than into history, but I think this is actually an invention of Dumas himself, not a historical fact.

For once, I liked your posts, and most of it seems pretty accurate, you seem to be a great scholar (for once). I too dislike the Song of Roland, but for different reasons.

I disagree that the first secular martial code in Europe was French though, definitely not from as late as 1800 AD, and that has been my point all along, these codes came first from Hammurabi in Mesopotamia and from the Roman Legion when they conquered Europe. The Mongols and their great Emperor did not leave any such warrior code behind that exists today, in, in fact I'd argue Sun Tzu's treatise and Rome's Epitoma rei militari are the basis for most the world's "surviving" martial codes, and this goes right down to the individual martial artist/warrior. Respect is something I see a lot of people posting about, and I agree it's all about respect. A good martial artist respects his enemies/training brothers, and great martial artist should respect all people.

[W. Rabbit]

Oh I guess I just dreamed up the "Genghis Khan=Hitler" analogies you posted earlier. You might have said that you don't judge them as good/bad, but everything else you posted contradicted that. It really doesn't bother me if you have something against the Mongols, it just annoys me that someone who is so severely misinformed about something would continue to act like an authority on the subject.

I'd rather be a Mongol apologist then another Ancient Greek fellator :jerkit2yf .

I equated them in terms of their shared warfare style (blitzkrieg) and the subsequent genocide at the hands of their soldiers, based on their expansion policy. I would not be the first person to do so....don't call me misinformed unless you have specific details to post, noob.

[nomamao]

I truly believe that chilvary shouldn't be a part of martial art philosophy any more than "don't use this to pick on people outside of class."

[Homernoid]

I may be simplifying things to a dualistic concept of strong vs. weak but its necessary to make any point on the side of an "altruistic" martial arts code.

again, you are oversimplifying things. duality does not help at all. martial arts are for fighting. anything beyond that very likely is expedable.

It's naive to believe strength comes from discipline and training? Please list some other ways.

in arbitrarly order: lifestyle, individual bodily limitations, nutrition
beside this: equiptment, mental attitude, etc.

Responsible use of force/strength is at the very heart of this thread. Teaching responsible use of force/strength is where the codes come in.

warrior codes, codes for those, that wage war, kill enemies, kill other human beings, killing them in a responsible way. the point is, I do not and propably never ever will be able to understand how the application of violence is responsible. the only exception is individual defense. defensive warfare easily can be made a very tricky discussion, I spare myself.

Sure, selfish people gang up and prey on the weak from the dawn of time. Which is why its even more important for the martially proficient to use their skills in their everyday lives to work together and form a greater society. This type of thing is not limited to martial artists, but the codes (as someone else pointed out) ensure our warrior classes (civilian or professional) co-exist peacefully, while they train for combat.

so warriors or wannabe-warriors train for combat. those codes may regulate violence, at least a little, and help to utilize violence potential for those in power, potentially those selfish we talked about above. but how on earth this may be responsible? training for combat even while co-existing peacefully, is training to become (more) capable break that peace and to keep that level of capability. restoring my be another option, but breaking it allways comes first.

If you truly just train to "hurt people", well...

eventually, yes, of course. however, ask the military personnel in here, why they train what they train, please. my guess is, eventually they do this to hurt/kill people - no matter, what cause they may have to call it legitimate, finally that's what it's all about.

[Dsimon3387]

Alexander's empire erupted in civil war and split apart just 2 years after his death. Since you seem to consider his leadership as more honorable than then the Mongols', I'm curious why you think his empire was so unstable. At least when Genghis Khan's empire divided (which also didn't happen until after his death), the pieces were still controlled by his sons and descendants.

Also, The Golden Horde dynasty actually lasted for closer to 300 years in Russia. Not to mention the fact that the Mongol Empire was many times larger than the Macedonian's (or the Romans for that matter), and that it held together at all over such a vast area is an amazing feat in itself.

Also, despite being called a horde, the Mongols didn't achieve their victories through sheer numbers. You make them sound like a swarm of mindless locusts. In the majority of their battles, especially early on, they were outnumbered. Instead, they won due to their incredible mobility. They were able to travel further and faster than any other army in the world. In combat, their light cavalry was unmatched, and they slaughtered opponents who couldn't avoid being outflanked.

A favorite tactic of the mongols was to retreat on horseback, while firing volleys of arrows point blank into their attacker's faces. Enemy infantry and heavy cavalry couldn't keep up with them, and they'd stay just out of range of their weapons. They'd keep this up until the attackers inevitably broke formation in desperation to catch them, at which point they'd circle back around and charge them from the rear.

Many of your posts are full of stereotypes of the Mongols, and I won't go into all of them. I just couldn't sit by and let you write off one of the most successful military commanders of all time as a stupid, violent barbarian with a lot of friends though.

the mongols were incredible in this regard.... just not really empire builders. i mean **** like putting meat under the saddle.... these guys didnt stop to eat!

was it onlt kahn though? or was it the mongol ways?

[Hiro Protagonist]

I disagree that the first secular martial code in Europe was French though, definitely not from as late as 1800 AD, and that has been my point all along, these codes came first from Hammurabi in Mesopotamia and from the Roman Legion when they conquered Europe. The Mongols and their great Emperor did not leave any such warrior code behind that exists today, in, in fact I'd argue Sun Tzu's treatise and Rome's Epitoma rei militari are the basis for most the world's "surviving" martial codes, and this goes right down to the individual martial artist/warrior.

Nope.

Show me a knightly code that was explicitly written down until the arrival of the orders - the knight templars were founded in 1119, everything else came afterwards.

Also, there is a difference between a martial code and a tactician's handbook. Of the first, you will find NONE until the 15th century. Unless you have narrative texts count.

Of the later, you find dozens and dozens all over history; basically, every single antique or medieval text about warfare can count as one.

The Western warrior's principal duty consisted in being a Christian; the measure for his honor was his piety; not so much his effectiveness, as with the samruai.

Hence, I would refrain from using the term "martial code" when talking about Western martial culture. This is my professional opinion, nothing less.

Respect is something I see a lot of people posting about, and I agree it's all about respect. A good martial artist respects his enemies/training brothers, and great martial artist should respect all people.

Again, no.

Respect is not granted.

It has to be earned.
By showing that one is willing and able to adapt a social code.
By showing that one is up to the test of values that a society appreciates.

Which is what you fail to understand.

So, stop preaching about things you have little or no knowledge about and train harder.

That'd be something we all could respect.

[Styygens]

Eastern MA, I'm sure, place a lot of emphasis on developing values and warrior codes and whatnot. My boxing does not. I do not consider myself a martial artist. I barely consider myself a boxer. I am fully capable of developing my own sense of right and wrong independent of the person who is teaching me structured violence. I see no real appplication in the modern day where martial arts can be used in a manner to 'defend the weak' or anything along those lines. I do not often hear about martial arts instructors going out into the general public and fistfighting gangbangers.

Poor, poor little unrecognized post.

This man has made an extremely important point that has been lost amid all the historical puffery.

No one expects boxers or wrestlers to adhere to any kind of warrior code.

We do expect them to be good sportsmen.

Perhaps these are related concepts, but they are most certainly not the same concept.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Poor, poor little unrecognized post.

Yepp.
Kickapoo = Most underrated poster at BS at the moment.
Should post more.