rofl, how prestigeous.
[QUOTE=Lucas;873676]rofl, how prestigeous.[/QUOTE]
Well, that worse job you could get with Caligula was clean up duty, bit I digress.
Back to the subject at hand.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;873637]Seriously though, Soldiers actually have established tactics for dealing with ambushes, how well they do it depends on the quality of the ambushers and ambushees.
Duelist rarely trained such tactics. [/quote]
… Miyamoto Musashi…
… Sun Tzu…
[QUOTE=bakxierboxer;873764]… Miyamoto Musashi…
… Sun Tzu…[/QUOTE]
Well, Musashi learned the hard way about ambushes :D, so yes, Iam sure he trained for them after that.
Sun Tzu dealt more with mass warfare if I recall.
[QUOTE=bakxierboxer;873764]… Miyamoto Musashi…
… Sun Tzu…[/QUOTE]
Musashi I haven’t read this decade.
Sunzi’s advice about ambushes was basically “don’t let this happen to you”.
suntzu/sunbian would use the method of traveling across paths that limit your exposure to possiblities of ambush, (the lay of the land and utilizing this was always emphasised by suntzu/sunbian) aside from that, if you are entering a landscape that increases this exposure, you would situate your forces to be able to deal with the ambush most effectively were it to happen. one must be expectant and plan accordingly.
musashi…well, both of these men were definately exceptions rather than norms…yet musashi definately dealt more in the realm of single combat than mass warfare.
A lot of that was actually expounded upon in sunzi commentaries and not in the core text.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873881]A lot of that was actually expounded upon in sunzi commentaries and not in the core text.[/QUOTE]
true, though that was the way of much chinese text very simple, and often left very open for inperitation, though when a sharp mind comes to these conclusions, we can be sure the signs that lead them there were purposfull. these tactitions were not writing for the common person but for other bright military leaders. those that could pull out the full meaning of the often cryptic writings. not much was ever laid out in simplistic terms anyone could understand.
the explinations and commentary are generally an “interpetation” of the text, to reveal much of what was actually meant by they often abstract and limited text.
for instance, often times such things would be said as “avoid deaths ground”
this type of comment means much, ‘deaths ground’ being specific types of landscape in conjunction with many other aspects of troop deployment, strength of force, enemy location, formation, etc.
many times 5 words could fill pages.
if we take thomas cleary’s work for instance. his commentary comes from one who has spent his life studying these works. we can be sure his interpritation of many of these texts are very instightful, and often hit very near the mark the authors were.
as confucius had said, when he speaks of a topic with someone, he will bring up one corner of the subject, if the one he is speaking with cannot bring up one of the other 3 corners on their own, he would no longer speak with them.
ive noticed this to be a common trend among much chinese literature of old.
Fair enough. However many of the commentaries on Sunzi are military discourses of significance enough that it is best to examine them separate from the core book in part out of respect for the commentators.
At least there was literature though, one can only imagine the systems of european and western combat that were lost due to not catalogue the techniques and principles of the system.
In many ways TCMA has a lot to owe guys like Lam Tsai Wing who took the first step in putting their teaching in writing and drawings.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;873906]At least there was literature though, one can only imagine the systems of european and western combat that were lost due to not catalogue the techniques and principles of the system.
In many ways TCMA has a lot to owe guys like Lam Tsai Wing who took the first step in putting their teaching in writing and drawings.[/QUOTE]
not much is lost actually. you can dig up quite a lot of it online or in various libraries.
the thing about western military combat or european military combat, as far as military stuff went, it was about escalation, so classical weapons and h2h was basically obsoleted by small arms, artillery, mobile artillery and of course bombs and so on.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;873907]not much is lost actually. you can dig up quite a lot of it online or in various libraries.
the thing about western military combat or european military combat, as far as military stuff went, it was about escalation, so classical weapons and h2h was basically obsoleted by small arms, artillery, mobile artillery and of course bombs and so on.[/QUOTE]
You don’t find much before the 14th century, if that.
Sure you have generalizations and such, but nothing really comparable to the Asian MA.
The various schools of swordsmanship tended to be divided between the french and italian, with the spanish more interested in mathematical theory than practicality.
In terms of small hand or H2H we have almost nil.
[QUOTE=SimonM;873905]Fair enough. However many of the commentaries on Sunzi are military discourses of significance enough that it is best to examine them separate from the core book in part out of respect for the commentators.[/QUOTE]
toche’ ;)
wait a second. did we all just make a real discussion last up to 4 pages on this forum :eek:
[QUOTE=Lucas;873942]wait a second. did we all just make a real discussion last up to 4 pages on this forum :eek:[/QUOTE]
Sshhh, you’ll wake up the trolls, they’ve been scared by the tags to this thread.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;873912]You don’t find much before the 14th century, if that.
Sure you have generalizations and such, but nothing really comparable to the Asian MA.
The various schools of swordsmanship tended to be divided between the french and italian, with the spanish more interested in mathematical theory than practicality.
In terms of small hand or H2H we have almost nil.[/QUOTE]
you won’t find much prior to the 14th century in asian martial arts either.
for instance, it is said that the shaolin had their martial; practice at their temple as far back as the Tang dynasty (c:700-900 ce), but there isn’t really anything definitive that indicates that this is 100 certain. Kind of like you have King Arthur’s legend being from around this period as well falling the collapse of the roman empire.
check out these links in this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_military_manuals.
But, I think the linchpin to it all is simply the literacy factor. Much martial arts in most societies was developed and exchanged in an environment of illiterates.
the rate of literacy we have today is unprecedented. Back then, you had to be pretty special to get any sort of education at all and most of your time was spent in the cycle of subsistence living.