why were the “standard” battlefield weapons of the day not taught?
Because the primary battlefield was not necessarily the “standard” battlefield to which you allude.
Why would you field an army on a conventional (for the day) battlefield with a pole rather than a spear or two short knives rather than a darn dao and shield or a kwan dao or any number of other actual battlefield weapons?
I think this the source of the confusion – what is meant by “army” and when/where does this army conduct its operations? Generally during Dynasty upheaval, when the ruling Dynasty starts to lose, they flee south. As the battles/conflict continue to the south, the resistance becomes less in the form of fielded soldiers/standing armies and more in the form of guerilla-type battles and city fighting. Given that these were the conditions during the latter stages of the 1600s, it is plausible that an army could be created that operated mostly in cities along the costal waterways.
But the book says that HFY was developed and used to train an entire ARMY to fight against the Qing. Nothing is said about it being limited to just a few small “cells.”
There is nothing in the definition of the word army that suggests that a group of people cannot organize themselves into cells or cabals and not refer to themselves as an army.
I can see how the trainers may have used the pole as the conceptiual representative of all long weapons and the knives as the conceptional representative of all short weapons. But even this is stretching my sense of “plausibility” if we consider that these people were concerned about serious battlefield engagements.
And if you don’t consider these people were concerned with serious battlefield engagements? I assume by “serious battlefield engagements” you refer to conventional/symmetrical warfare (standing army vs. standing army) and not unconventional/asymmetrical warfare (standing army vs. non-standing army). In that regard, by removing the qualifier “serious battlefield engagements” – does the situation suggested now seem more plausible?
But based on the two-track approach, it would seem contradictory to say that the common troops were taught weapons in this fashion. If they were shown only what they needed to know to survive, it would seem to me they would have been taught the spear or the darn dao directly, not the long pole and the double knives.
The pole and double-knives in combination create a matrix of all possible hand-to-hand weapon systems, save flexible and thrown. With this knowledge base, trainers/teachers could give a group of soldiers practical knowledge and skill in a relatively short period of time. Also, bear in mind that the warfare was not necessarily in open fields and poles/knives were more appropriate as you suggest elsewhere.
But these guys weren’t monks. The were soldiers in a revolutionary army according to the HFY history. They wouldn’t care whether you could take the weapon into a temple!
Soldiers being taught a system developed within the Southern Shaolin Temple through a synthesis of Shaolin and Ming knowledge. It is proposed that the art was created in the context of a Buddhist Temple (Southern Shaolin Temple) with input from the Ming military. In order to “fit the part” it is necessary to blend in with the surroundings. Monks training with spears would call unnecessary attention to their activities in regards to developing a new system.
HFY prior to the Red Boat era and yet they left no trace of their martial art behind? No HFY “DNA” in local village martial arts in the areas where the army operated, or home villages that the soldiers returned to when things quited down?
The book says that HFY as taught today is the same martial art taught to the revolutionary army.
Here’s another source of confusion. The soldiers were taught what was needed – not necessarily all the HFY body mechanics, just enough to ‘get the job done’. With that in mind, and given the timeframe of all this activity, it is possible that many of the southern “family” systems were the result of people developing/training in the revolutionary armies and then continuing the training when they returned to civilian life. As for HFY DNA in local systems - that also remains to be seen – the family styles need to be researched and documented to a greater extent that current. As for these systems being more or less “WCK-like” – that remains to be seen as well. Research in China isn’t so easy as you just pop in, ask a few pointed questions, get some pictures of the masters and off you go. There’s still a very active martial arts culture and certain topics are off limits to outsiders. Given that context, information is slow to accumulate – and many people still play ‘close to the chest’ doing cross family comparisons isn’t as easy as doing research here in the States.
With all due respect, I place my elbows on the “yin line” as well. I just never had anyone put a name to it before. It comes about by human biomechanics, not some secret theory.
The Ng Jou practitioner made use of something that took 10 years to figure out. Given enough time and energy, I could figure out the 11 herbs and spices of KFC – or be given the recipe and save all that time and effort – or go watch the chiefs prepare their spices and try to steal what I see. All of these occurred in the kung fu world of the past. However, trying to figure things out on my own vs. having the recipe from the start changes not only what I do but my understanding of what I do. With a clear understanding, I can teach/communicate clearly. Without a clear understanding, I can only teach a ‘best guess’ and my students are going to guess their best, too.
Going back to the history, the teachers were like engineers – they knew what they were doing and had the technology to analyze the machine to rebuild it. The students were like technicians – they could do the job but didn’t know why the machine worked the way it did.
WCK was the hand to hand self-defense method of a large number of anti-Qing revolutionaries, the hand to hand combat method of an army that operated in secret fighting non-conventional warfare.
more plausible?
[b]the pole and double knives were adopted out of expediency and need, rather than being the prototypes for all battlefield weapons. [b]
Actually, I’m suggesting just the opposite: The pole and double-knife are the summation of the battlefield weapons, rather than the prototypes. With an understanding of the pole and double-knife, all battlefield weapons can be understood. Going the other way, you’d have to learn all the battlefield weapons in order to understand the pole and double-knife. And again, the trainer had to understand what he was doing – the soldier just had to know what to do. That’s too different levels of information, creating two different skill sets.
the only WCK lineage that included Dan Chi Sao was YMWCK
Chi Sim also makes use of single hand reactional training, much like Dan Chi Sau.
[b]Yip Man’s later students developed Chi Gerk based upon the concepts of Chi Sao. Yip Man did not teach Chi Gerk.[b]
Chi Sim also makes use of a leg training exercise much like Chi Geuk.
there may be another explanation for all the connections that you see. Then again, maybe it all predated Yip Man and he somehow learned HFY?
Then again, maybe Ip Man stole concepts/training from the Chi Sim lineage at the Daai Duk Lan. No flames, just throwing that out there as something plausable.
Then again, maybe Ip Man had contact with practitioners and teachers of a wide variety of southern styles and found comment elements in training methods that plugged into his understanding and approach to martial arts. And it is possible that the common elements originated from somewhere else and were dispersed across several types and in different timeframes.
Jeremy R.
