Really interesting stuff, take a look.
Yeah, I have that book. It’s really quite awesome.
You should get it if you’re into that kind of stuff. Highly recommended.
“Duifang jing zhi meng ji, wo fang tui zhi ce fang xi zhi.”
Look up George Silver too. A member here posted a link to a couple of his papers some time ago.
ahhh, here it is!..George Silver’s “paradoxes of defence”
Anyway, he was an english swordsman and martial arts practitioner appointed to the court a few centuries ago.
Had a few remarkable things to say about the “poor” state of martial arts instruction in england. 
even way back when.
The hopologists have pretty good sites (go to www.google.com and type “hopology”) and I’m willing to bet my broadsword you will be able to find tons of interesting materials from days of yore in your local military museum, university archives and other non standard non-general public sort of information repositories.
peace
Kung Lek
Interesting stuff 
cxxx:::::::::::>
You’re fu(king up my chi
Recontructing Ancient Martial arts
And excellent read fro those truly interested in western AND eastern MA.
Some of my favs:
Tracing or reconstructing extinct martial arts, of course, requires more than a fair share of speculation. It seems that at least some early fighting systems traceable in early recorded history, preserved elements of religious or at least shamanic exclusivity that prohibited outsiders from learning and passing on jealously guarded secrets. In non-literate societies, this means that an art would cease to exist (and be lost to the antiquarian) when the native masters were unable or unwilling to pass on their knowledge.
There are other obstacles. Masters like Liechtenauer actually made a point of keeping their instructions as cryptic and unintelligible to outsiders as possible. Accordingly, fencers imprinted by the modern versions of the art and without the urge to research the early schools of the sword, gladly embrace the assumption that before the Spanish and Italian fencing masters popularized the rapier and thrust fencing, there must have been a void of skill and technique, the obvious lack being made up by brute strength.
Suetonius mentions that Tiberius was able to pierce an apple with his index finger, a technique referred to as spear-finger in some modern Asian systems. The gladiatorial games and schools, where fighters were systematically trained in highly specialized fighting systems, have never been analyzed in regard to technical detail–although one of our Adventures will introduce us to one of their techniques.
But Odysseus has not only mastered breathing, concentration and punching techniques. He also appears to have a solid knowledge of pressure points and “nerve centers”. His deliberately chosen target coincides with Tegner’s nerve center #25:
In this area there is a concentration of nerves. The target is behind and up under the jawbone. (...) A jabbing or punching blow results in considerable pain. The extended knuckle or fingertips can be used.
one more time, because it bears repeating.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;871975]one more time, because it bears repeating.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html[/QUOTE]
Point 9 warms my heart , being of the spanish school myself, but if you could make note of YOUR views, I think that would be good too.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;871951]And excellent read fro those truly interested in western AND eastern MA.
http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/ancient.html[/QUOTE]
cool, thanks Sanjuro.pz
An interesting point that the author makes in the book that this is an exerpt from is that, warrior civilizations such as the Spartans and Romans ( at their highest martial peak) denounced “combat sports” as counter-productive to the “warrior mindset”…
" But the most serious military societies, Sparta and Rome, trained for war more directly and reduced the role of sport or condemned it. They recognized that it was an inefficient, haphazard training, and the seemingly undisciplined combat events were particularly suspect. "
I think what that is mostly about is that the single-combat mindset is counter-productive to the professional soldier. Fighting in part of a mass group using co-operational tactics is VERY different from dueling.
A skilled duelist would probably slaughter a legionaire in single combat.
Put 100 skilled duelists onto a field against 100 legionaires and the duelists will fold like a paper airplane.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873440]I think what that is mostly about is that the single-combat mindset is counter-productive to the professional soldier. Fighting in part of a mass group using co-operational tactics is VERY different from dueling.[/QUOTE]
perhaps…
[QUOTE=SimonM;873440]I think what that is mostly about is that the single-combat mindset is counter-productive to the professional soldier. Fighting in part of a mass group using co-operational tactics is VERY different from dueling.
A skilled duelist would probably slaughter a legionaire in single combat.
Put 100 skilled duelists onto a field against 100 legionaires and the duelists will fold like a paper airplane.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm, assumption…based on the THEORY that a trained legionaire devoted his time to mass warfare and very little to one on one combat and the reverse was applicable to a duelist.
I theory I don’t prescribe too.
SR mass combat and dueling require differing and often contradictory requirements. Fighting against a single opponent as if you were in a phalanx is a good way to get dead.
Likewise duelistry, which depends largely on mobility doesn’t include training in cooperative tactics.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873467]SR mass combat and dueling require differing and often contradictory requirements. Fighting against a single opponent as if you were in a phalanx is a good way to get dead.
Likewise duelistry, which depends largely on mobility doesn’t include training in cooperative tactics.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but to conclude that a Legionaire, for example, had inferior individual skills based on the fact that he trained for mass combat forgets that individual skills was still needed as more often than not, one still fought one-on-one on the battlefield, not to mention all the OTHER times he fought.
Spartans and Macedonians were great mass warfare fighters and they were also excellent single conflict fighters, how do we know this?
Homer Iliad for example and also, a tad of common sense as we apply it today:
If you can’t take out one guy, how well will you do on the battlefield?
Don’t forget that the requirements of being a proficient “part of the machine” are the same that will make a fine duelist, though not always the reverse is the case.
The physical attributes are the same, though the intent is more “intense”, at best it can be argued that a duelist probably has more “fakes” in his repetoire, which are countered by the “legionaires” “quick kill intent”.
It can be argued…
Your buddies are covering your flanks with their shields and spears on a battlefield mass combat scenario. I’m not saying one is better than the other. I’m simply saying that the tactics needed to train a single-combat specialist are in some ways mutually exclusive with the tactics neede to train a mass-combat specialist.
Now, one could always train for both with sufficient time and effort. 
[QUOTE=SimonM;873477]Your buddies are covering your flanks with their shields and spears on a battlefield mass combat scenario. I’m not saying one is better than the other. I’m simply saying that the tactics needed to train a single-combat specialist are in some ways mutually exclusive with the tactics neede to train a mass-combat specialist.
Now, one could always train for both with sufficient time and effort. :P[/QUOTE]
Yes, your flanks are covered from angles that aren’t applicable to a duel, unless its a tag team duel.
What I am saying is that a mass-combat specialist is better equipped to deal with single combat than single-combat specialist is able to deal with mass combat.
Again, the core skills of a training a mass-combat warrior are the same as training a single combat specialist and remember, single combat was probably still more “popular” than mass ones and many mass ones tended to degenerate to small groups of singles too.
Single combat specialist training became common with the increase of duels before that, it was part of the warrior way from the very beginning.
And to you too
Just to be clear, we both do agree that single-combat significantly predates mass warfare, right?
professional soldiers had plenty of time in the practice yard, including countles hours of one on one matches to equate to more than standard profeciency.
Not all mind you, but the men who were completely addicted to warfare and combat would NOT overlook single combat.
quite the opposite actually.