WHich of the many kung fu styles that are popular nowadys still retains many of the techniques/approaches that were necessary in the battelfield setting in ancient China? Of course they are all very effective now (when taught/trained right) but I get the feeling that they have a more…civilan feel to them. What I mean is this - when you’re fighting in an army mobility and weapons work is paramount. Fighting against and using armor is also important, as is skills associated with wielding weapons on foot and on horseback. In a civilian setting (on the street, bodyguarding, dueling, etc), where there is no armor involved and long polearms and such weapons are not used, the tactics and approaches to fighting are different. I am assuming here, of course, of kung fu that would have been used by the more professional soldiers/warriors and not the recruits that would need to be trained quickly/simply.
I contrast this to some of the more traditional JMA - Koryu styles that still train to fight in and against armor, practice horsemanship, archery, etc. These are getting pretty rare too, and more and more JMA is of the Gendai (modern, post-Meiji) variety. But in the case of the JMA, it was more of a conscious shift to de-emphasize old school, samurai arts (except for thise few families and individuals who kept it alive) and focus more on or modify arts to fit the world of the firearms better. In the case of CMA, I don’t think there was anything similar (unless you count the Nanking INsititues and their like) but still kung fu styles more or less carried over from the feudal era to the modern contiguously. But was there a more of an emphasis in “civilain” mode of fighting in CMA anyway in the past? The only art that comes to mind that even has battlefield aspects associated with them in terms of legend of history are Eagle Claw and Hsing-I (both supposedly invented by Yueh Fei). There may be more but I’m just not aware of any other. Anybody care to take a crack at this?
Because if you want a kind of martial arts that have been consistantly popular for the military to train their soldiers for all the thousands of years in history, the only one that really comes to mind is horsemanship and archery. Sadly, I havn’t seen that in any kung fu school
I know that Hsing-I was used by the military about 1000 years ago. If I have my facts straight White Crane Hsing-I was taught to the low rank soldiers and Shansi Hsing-I was taught to the Generals.
That’s why in Shansi Hsing-I (SH) there is no side-stepping or back-stepping (no retreat) since the Generals were the last line of defence in a battle. SH absorbs any attacks and quickly defeats the opponents with a combination of devastating blows, leaving the general ready for the next opponent.
Bare in mind here that kungfu was created as a civilian defense against mounted armed soldiers and royalty, who back in the day were the only folks allowed to carry weapons, leaving the people defenceless. Kicks and strikes had to be able to knock an armed guy out of his mount or at minumum protect the dude on ground from his attack. Like you said, regardless of style, effective teaching is key. If you put yourself in this situation and look for styles that would combat that, you shouldn’t go too far wrong.
As far as the soldiers were concerned, they were armed and fighting folks who were unarmed and untrained. Kungfu was cultivated privately and was no doubt a surprise to troups on raids and in battles.
Originally posted by SevenStar There’s no evasion at all in the shansi style?
There are blocks and animal movements which redirect force but it’s phylosophy is no retreat. A confrontation is ended as quickly as possible. I’m no expert in it though. I have barely began to scratch the surface.
not certain there are any arts now that are “ancient battlefield styles”.
maybe some forms in some systems contain techs that were applied broadly to a military forces training regimen. For instance, it is said that Ku yu cheong taught lien bo to the kuo min tang. so, techniques would have been used to ground the soldiers in stepping and striking.
Also, classical wepaons forms would have some stuff in them, notably spear forms, sword forms and others.
most certainly, entire armires did not have refined kungfu and like any other force would have units of specialists like today and the larger body of men would consist primarily of arrow or cannon fodder. Same as today.
created by general… I cant remember his name.