so it occurs to me when you are in a formation 100 files long ten ranks deep you dont need to be fancy to kill. In fact you wont have the room. It also occurs to me that your opponent wont be doing kicks backflips or fancy sword moves he will be getting a crossbow or a longer spear. So what if any use does martial arts have on a a battle filed. Is this what it was designed for. Battles or for smaller use like one on one fights.

No. Martial arts isn't about backflips and fancy moves. Martial arts is about killing, so don't be confused by Jet Li...real Martial Arts are nothing like what you see in a Wuxia film, and Soldiers are taught martial arts as Shuai Jiao etc, which would've been useful in the battlefield especially if the soldier was disarmed.

I think Yang Zongbao has it spot on, it's important for a soldier to know what he should and shouldn't do when in combat. In swordsmanship, you learn timing, distance, various cuts from different angles, correct blade alignment, the way to hold the sword properly etc. Without this knowledge, your just swinging a sword about.

Just my 2 cents worth, for military arts, attacking areas are almost exclusive to neck, joints and armpits as military arts generally takes armour into account when training. Of course. there are plenty of examples against this claim.

The problem with looking at Chinese military systems is because there are just so many instances where a civilian master beats the military instructor and took his job. Thereby instilling the less lethal civilian systems into the military. Question is, what kind of developement occurred after this is something that pretty much is unrecorded.

I have been hoping to find records of things like Mao's bodyguard records or some warlord's training manuals. No such like so far.

forgive me I was just exgagerating for effect. But my point remains in a large formation armed with spear and shield beyond knowing how to block with your shield and thrust with yous spear what more could you do. sure it would help to know aim for the head neck but I imagine most people would know this instictavly. I also imagine battle experience was the most important teacher. But again in the scenario I have described a levied peasant could kill a man who has trained his whole life and I would not be suprised.

The spear is a much more simple weapon to use than a sword. it is also more efficient. However, their are still many techniques. For example one of my books on swordsmanship "Fighting with the german longsword" covers the spear. It first teaches the footwork, the three stances, and then the combative applications. Their is so much more than simply thrusting, techniques such as feints, grabbing the spear with the hand, etc can be turned into thousands of combative applications. Also, keep in mind that soldiers would need to know how to fight in armour, against armoured opponents, this would add an entirely new dimension to combat.

We have a thread similar to this:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=1620

Perhaos another way to look at it is also the drill of actually movig in formation. SInce the Eastern Zhou the tight disipline of formations is apparent in a number of ways.
The brave do not advance, the cowardly do not retreat. Each soldier adjusts himself according to the disposition fo the other.
T. Chen posted a quote from an article on Qin. It essentially said the ancient army is not a martial arts troupe.
In this way group drill and cooperation may even be more important than individual skill. With versatile armies numbering into the tens or hundreds of thousands it would be as much about the positioning and equipment of the soldiers rather more than the individual. I do not believe in superhumans.
This does not make change any of the above comments about purely military martial arts, which are quite correct. I would emphasise coordination of a group as more important than individual skill however. The martial arts taught to them would be simply drills, basic & to the point, as under stress all the flowery stuff goes of the window.
As said above essentially styles are meaningless and it will be more about distancing and wielding a sword or polearm a little better than the person in front of you.
In a formation and crushed melee I doubt there will be much chance for evasion, and the parry and the shield, or superior weapons and speed will decide who is run through.
I wouldnt want to be in a front rank.

While I actually agree with your general statement, I like to point out:

1. Martial training is still present, but not necessarily the ones you see today. In the case of close rank fighting as you present above, there are techniques which are still applicable. Many current martial arts emphasis 横打一值线 héng dǎ yī zhí xiàn “striking straight in a line“. Having the necessary groundwork and footwork can still be very useful.

2. Your example above is a phalanx style formation, it does not necessarily follow that all chinese troops fought in this formation. It has mentioned on this forum before that well-trained infantry can go from close ot open order (I hasten to add such big changes are actually very difficult to execute and implies very well trained indeed) in an open order many of the martial arts moves may be more applicable. A lot of martial is about training reflexive action, the correct way to stand, to block, to thrust etc. I still see having them train and drill in this as being effective in battle.

3. I once saw a documentary on European martial training of the medieval period, what the show found interesting was the similarily in stances to chinese martial arts
such as trying to present as small a possible profile to your enemy, the position of the foot and the blocks against weapons. The conclusion they drew was that these techniques evolved because they worked on the battlefield and were actually scientific in their application, not fancy.

A good book would be general Qi Ji Guang's Ji Xiao Xin Shu, it has some good critics about martials arts and how thing work in real battle.

The training of the spear is determining by the schools of martial arts.

In Beijing, one BG school teaches the spear as the last weapon.

@ my school, the spear (qing) is the extension of the straight sword (jian),

Military martial arts focus on the use of weapons (spears, swords, etc), as well as things like combative wrestling (orthos, ringkampf, sumai, kumi-uchi, shuai-go, etc.) Most of the grappling methods used in the military context all over the world focus on standing throws, as well as the use of short weapons (eg., the dolch and the yoroi-doshi).



I'm honestly surprised that this sort of thing happened.

In the West, military swordsmen seem to have looked down upon their civilian equivalents. Civilian swordsmen were usually only skilled in a limited number of weapons, whereas a good soldier could "defend himself with anything whatsoever", to borrow Giacomo di Grassi's way of putting it.

Moderator note: Please refrain from using non-chinese evidence to justify a chinese normitive claim. It is ok to say how things are done in a specific area, but when saying something like "all over the world," it will be interpreted as making claim of how China would have done it as well without supporting evidence from Chinese sources.


Wujiang's reply: Most likely because of the sophistication in martial arts society developement outside of the miliary in China. A combination between the jianghu win-and-survive-with-a-decent-livelihood environment and the cities' martial arts community's win-and-kick-a-competitor-out-of-town system, civilian martial arts recieved a huge level of advancement through constant competition. On the other hand, the military lacks the intensive competitive environment of personal development and much more to do with the developement of an overall system of training effective soldiers. While competitions between intructors does exists (as with everywhere), there are so much more other things to concern their minds.

But it is true though, civilians generally don't beat military instructors. The ones that actually do are ones that makes legends.

Wujiang,

All I said was that "Most of the grappling methods used in the military context all over the world focus on standing throws, as well as the use of short weapons", which is a fact. And I did offer a "Chinese source"--Ming-era wrestling, aka shuai-go. It's worth noting that modern Chinese wrestling (shuai jiao) also focuses on standing throws, much like other systems from other countries. I honestly don't see what the problem is with what I posted above.

Best Regards,

David

I see where the problem is.

(1) Shuai-go is a term that is rarely (if ever) used. Most 15th Century sources generally uses the term shuaijiao or goli.

(2) It is a bit of an overstatment to say that Ming era military training focuses on standing throws. Although they exist, hand strikes and kicks are all commonly used. While standing throws exists, they are hardly the 'focus' of the arts, more like just a part of it.

Yup, and Ta Tsin Centurion never claimed it was either. So your contention is...

I have always understood that the main forms of Chinese wrestling were:

Tang Dynasty--Shang-pu

Sung Dynasty--P'ai-chang

Ming & Ch'ing Dynasties--Shuai-go

Republic--Shuai-jiao

If I am mistaken on this, please let me know.





I never said anything about "Ming era military training" as a whole focusing on standing throws.

All I said was that military grappling methods tend to focus on standing throws.

There are a number of ways to describe wrestling at the time. The one that occurs most would certainly be Shuaijiao and Shanpo. Others includes Goli, Quanbo, Bufu, Buke, Liaojiao, Godi, Shanmo, Shangpo among others. All of the ones listed occurs more often than Shuaigo. I have to admit, I am a little confused as to why you thought that was the term to use.

But my concern of your use of non-chinese evidence remains as the evidence you produced for short arms"the dolch and the yoroi-doshi." (lets leave the matter at that)


You statement was in response to mine. As it was contrary to what I stated which was primarily about striking, there is no reason to believe you were not claiming otherwise.

Really? I've heard reference to Shuai Go much more often than most of those that you have posted.

Perhaps you can give me a source ?

My source for the names of the predominant forms of Chinese wrestling during the different dynasties is the classic text by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts

All I did was make a general statement about military martial arts, from the worldview perspective.



My statement was not "contrary" to your statement--it merely augmented it. You mentioned the limited number of targets open to strikes on an armored opponent, and I mentioned wrestling.

I'll dig my sources up. But considering both me and Ta-Tsin centurion have heard reference to Shuai Go, but not reference to any of the names you mentioned. It seems pretty clear which term is more common.

I use primary sources such as historical documents and military manuals of the time. And of the hundreds of times where terms regarding hand-to-hand combat actually comes up, Shuaigo only came up on a relatively minute number of times.

I usually find that translated documents must often twist words around a little just to make things uniform or coherent. No fault of the author, just the difference between language and within langauges makes things imposible to read if you are not proficient with the ancient texts. A very common mistakes for Chinese-English translations are often the confusion between 'words' and 'names' of things.


Considering there is a Shanpoying and not a Shuaigoying in the Qing military structure, I think it is pretty clear which was more common. The fact the term 'bad' is used to denote something positive among certain people does not make it 'more common' on a large scale of things.

And what military manuals would these be?

Yes, I'd be curious to hear about these too.

明會要，明會典，明史，林項書，涌幢小品，力士通雜，踞燎手鈔，洪厥綠，養吉齊業錄，嘯亭雜錄，嘯亭續錄，清會典 among others.
Only in areas of Tianjin is it known as Shuaigo.

Firstly,Keneth,I would like to praise you.You've an excellent intellectual character and even go to the trouble of essentially using footnotes on a forum-you deserve high praise indeed! The quality of drill is important;but the romans did not spend four years teaching their soldiers fencing with the gladius for nothing nor have specialist fencing masters either for nothing.You would also believe in superhumans if you had enough combat experience.The effectiveness of individuals is greatly effected by their innate gifts and character for any activity and especially so for fighting.The average man does not have the malice and cruelty,the suspicion and pride,the boldness and daring,the integrity and worthiness to be the stuff that great warriors are made of;nor do many of them have the intelligence needed or have develpoed the specialized martial character needed to be strong in battle.Even simple things like being able to casually run a spear through an eye socket into the brain or chop off a hand are likely to give a decisive edge in real combat as ones opponent will freeze or try to bolt if they don't have a like character.I've been both the freezee and the sub zero-so I do know what I'm talking about.

The survivability of the warrior depends alot on their state of conscious awareness, experience and conditioning.

Also the type of opposition, terrain and climate.

@ the end, it is about the survival of the fittest.

Han dynasty soliders practise a form of martial arts call Han Quan. (from a documentary i saw)

Martial arts are developed from warfare, that is true. And have to do with alot of conditioning. It issnt normal to kill some one. And it takes tons of courage too.

Cool how similiar was Han Quan to wushu today

Q: What's the trademark of this Han Quan system?

Likely very dissimilar.

Wushu today is a feast for the eyes, with very little actual combat application. I suspect it'd be similar to any other empty handed military martial art.

Are you serious? I have never heard of "Han Quan" as a military martial art in Han history. According to the bibliographical listing on the military arts manuals in the Han Shu, Ch. 30, Yiwen Zhi, among the works listed were 6 chapters on a military combat skill called shoubo 手搏 (listed along with 38 chapters on 剑道 jiandao/fencing, and other chapters on military-related skills such as archery, military football/"soccer"), and this was to be differentiated from Jiao Di (Han term for wrestling), which was a military sport. Shoubo 手搏 was therefore a striking system with hands, not a wrestling system. Reportedly, shoubo 手搏 is among the earliest terms to describe bare-handed combat. I doubt "Han Quan" ever existed but it seems almost certain that Han soldiers did practice a bare-handed military martial art utilizing striking with hands.

You hit the nail right there.

I just want to add that most of the Chinese "martial arts" (if they can even be called such due to the level of deevolution that Chinese martial arts have suffered in the 20th century) known today are practiced as a sport, not intended for its original purpose as a combat skill. Most of the flowery forms seen in today's "Kung Fu" are probably the result of civilian style martial arts which combined the original military martial arts taught to late-Zhanguo/Qin/Han militiamen and the civilian-developed "flowery forms" associated with self expression and individual styles (this is according to Henning, who uses both primary sources and contemporary sources of modern Chinese historians). Qi Jiguang's "Jixiao Xinshu" 紀效新書/"New Book of Effective Discipline" (this is cited by Henning) condemned these types of civilian martial arts as undisciplined and inappropriate for military use. To quote Qi Jiguang, he indicates that "in training troops, the pretty is not practical and the practical is not pretty" (again cited by Henning); from that, we have a somewhat better idea of the great difference between the type of martial arts practiced by the military and those practiced by civilians, which constitute almost all of the known "Kungfu" styles of today.

Not quite. According to popular martial arts folklore, legends, and myths, it is often claimed that Shaolin Monastery was the best institution of Chinese martial arts. Yet, several cases illustrate the folly with these myths and claims of civilian martial arts superiority and just shows that there was great influence on the civilian martial arts from the military martial arts, at a time when the civilian martial arts seem to be quite underdeveloped in contrast to the high level of development of the military martial arts, and this was during the mid-late Ming era, quite more recent in the context of history. Ming general Yu Dayou, according to his book Zheng Qi Tang Ji, visited Shaolin monastery and was disappointed with what he saw and selected a couple of young monks to accompany him in the field and receive intensive training to return to raise the standards of the Shaolin martial arts. According to Yu Dayou's poem for the Shaolin monk Zongji, Yu Dayou taught his sword/fencing techniques to the young Shaolin monk Zongji who followed Yu in his campaigns against the wokou/wako pirates because the Shaolin monks had lost their sword/fencing skills that had been practiced in the monastery before.

Regarding the effectiveness and use of bare-handed (if that is what you mean by "backflips and kicks") martial arts on the battlefield, I believe the bibliographical list in the Han Shu, Ch. 30 Yiwen Zhi might actually give a clue regarding the bare-handed martial arts and its importance in the overall training program of a Han soldier as an example. Clearly, there are far more chapters on fencing, archery, crossbow techniques, and even military football (cuju, and it was probably used to train soldiers in agility and coordination for use on the battlefield) all combined than a mere 6 chapters on shoubo/striking with hands; there exists 38 for fencing/sword techniques alone. From there, we may get an idea of how much bare-handed martial arts was emphasized, at least in the Han military system. Henning hypothesizes that bare-handed martial arts in the context of the military was a form of basic training to prepare troops to use weapons, but alone was only a weapon of last resort (when no weapons and armour are around, for example, in the last minutes of melee), based on Gu Shi's commentaries on the Han Shu 30: Yiwenzhi on shoubo, that he translates as "to practice hand and foot movements, facilitate use of weapons, and organize for victory in offense or defense." According to "Zhongguo Shuaijiao Fa" (tr. "The Methods of Chinese Wrestling") by Tong Zhongyi in 1935, he describes the practicality and usefulness of Shuai Jiao and bare-handed combat in the military as follows: "Although using all the various methods to win, and using spears, sticks, staffs, bullets, and cannons, forsaking empty-hand arts, in the last five minutes of battle it is Chinese wrestling that decides victory." Although it might be a bit exaggerated, it illustrates the usefulness of bare-handed martial arts during the last few minutes of melee battle when the fighting becomes prolonged up to the point where all the man-made weapons of the soldiers become broken or ineffective.

What if your formation breaks and a general melee occurs? Thats where skill and experience serves the purpose.

I also find it ridiculous how many people actual believe the Shaolin myth that the monks were uber warriors in which they have such a tremondous and pivotal impact on Chinese military/martial arts. The true martial arts pioneers/innovators were military professionals(soldiers, mercs, officers, generals, etc.) who actually learned, applied, tested, and refined their skills on the battlefield. Not some monks stuck on a isolated monastery that even bandits find too much a hassle to even climb up to. It's just common sense. Who to trust with skills........the guy that actually fought and kill someone or a random monk who spends most his times within the walls of the temple and never hurt an ant.

Not exactly true.

Martial arts are created as a means of winning in a situation of violence. War is not the only circumstance where that happens.

Soldiers are NOT naturally better fighters. Soldiers who sit around all day will not defeat a man who fights off bandits day and night to protect his home. If anything, soldiers are generally less well trained melee than civilians because of the fact that melee is considered a skill of last resort. Most military combat skills is based on horsemanship, archery, artillery, formation, and unorthodox tactics. Those are the things that gets emphasized in military training. Civilians on the other hand, although there are still archery skills, arrows are generally a far too expensive luxery and thus it is melee that often becomes the emphasis of training. Difference in emphasis in training means how developed that skills are.

Additional evidence as to why it is incorrect to assume soldiers to be better fighters are because it is not unusual in China for civilian martial artists to defeat the head instructor in the military. This includes the head instructor of the imperial guard who is supposed to, like civilians, have their CQC to be their main dish. China is among the weirdest nation as to this actually occuring. It is actually rather odd that civilian fighting arts actually developed deeper and broader than that of the military. Very likely because of the fact that CQC are indeed takes a rather low piority in military training as well as the unusual competitiveness and lawlessness (or some would say, incompotence of the reigional government) of jianghu.

Although the who Shaolin myth is indeed laughable, it does not neglect the fact that the Chinese jianghu have produced some of the greatest fighters in the world. Individually, between a biaoshi who actually does have the fight for a living and a soldier who does nothing but load the shenbinu, I would certainly put my money on the biaoshi.

Slightly off topic, I saw a CCTV program on the famed 29th Jun (or brigade) that wielded those huge Chinese broadswords. The Da Dao Dui. They were the ones who massacred hundreds of Japanese soldiers in close quarter combat, striking fear into the Japanese. I think the Da Dao's were effective because when you're close and dirty, a chopping weapon is much more effective than a soldier's bayonet on a rifle.
With the Dao dao you basically parry the bayonet's thrust, then smash down on the enemy soldier's head. The blade doesn't even have to be sharp. If you can't get the neck or head, any limb will do. Cut or smash the legs, arms or shoulders, and you have incapacitated the enemy.
After watching many movies and videos I am certain that a bayonet on a rifle is rather useless. It would be more effective to use the rifle as a club and smash some heads.
Just my two cents, or fen.

Boarhuntr

Your statements make sense. But they could also work vice-versa, ie: Civilians are NOT naturally better fighters. Civilians who plough the fields all day will not defeat an imperial bodyguard who was a well-experienced and battle-hardened veteran soldier.

As you can see, bringing up extreme cases cannot represent the decisive victor in the contest of civilian MA vs. military MA. Instead of using a low-quality soldier to represent the military martial arts while using a civilian-type mercenary (many of whom actually had a military background - I'm not talking about those in the wuxia novels, but examples in real history such as Chen Wangting, the taizu of Chen Jia Taijiquan) to represent civilian martial arts, I think it's better to compare the civilian-type mercenary with the well-trained battle-hardened professional veteran soldier. And, since the mercenary, many times, have a military background, I would opt for the professional soldier.



Although boxing/quanfa was considered a skill of last resort, quanfa was, according to Gu Shi, a fundamental combat skill that helped prepare troops to use weapons. Group tactics and skills can often decide the outcome of a battle, but how well those group tactics and skills were executed also heavily depends on the skills of the individuals. Besides, according to grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, practicing weapon sets is like holding dumbbells while practicing unarmed sets, and the special skills gained from practicing weapon sets are transferable to and complement skill in unarmed combat; also many weapon sets are similar to unarmed sets in their movements. And skill with weapons, I reckon, was highly emphasized in any military since they were the instruments of war.

We must also remember that the military was an institution for the development of fighting methods, just only that the scale of fighting usually involved larger numbers and more to do with weapons and group coordination tactics, which cannot be executed skillfully without the individuals being skilled themselves - how can a battalion, for example, execute a coordinated ambush attack if their soldiers don't even have enough strength and skill to wield weapons effectively in battle or don't have enough stamina to keep up with the rest of the battalion during marching and running or aren't mentally trained to be alert during intense combat situations?



I would say that this was probably true only during the late-Ming and Qing periods of Chinese history. Before this time, as both of the examples of Qi Jiguang (civilian "huafa") and Yu Dayou show (teaching Shaolin monk to improve their staff and sword techniques), the civilian martial arts were not developed up to the level of those practiced in the military. The civilian martial arts' improvement during late Ming-Qing times may be due to the advent and establishment of neijiaquan in the categorizing of Chinese martial arts during the mid 17th century; I am basing this on the fact that Huang Zongxi's "Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan" of 1669 seems to be the first source to categorize the CMA into "external"/Waijia and "internal"/Neijia schools; Neijia martial arts may represent the epitome of civilian martial arts development (even though some of their founders, such as Chen Wangting of Chen Jia Taijiquan, had a military background) since it combines the benefits to strength gained from qigong with the traditional CMA, the former I presume was not traditionally associated with military training. Interestingly, the appearance of the Neijia categorization associated with Wang Zhengnan also prompted the development of several neijia styles during this time, ie Ji Long Feng of Xingyiquan, Dong Hai Quan of Baguaquan, despite the myths of Taiji with Zhang Sanfeng and Xingyi with Yue Fei.



In my honest opinion, I don't believe that the semi-mythical "daxia" of the jianghu world as described in wuxia novels can be taken as evidence of the "some of the greatest fighters of the world" since apparently both those daxia and jianghu weren't real (although I understand that you could also be referring to times of lawlessness in Chinese history as "jianghu" though I certainly don't want to call those times "jianghu", connotating that somehow wuxia novels represent real history). I would also add that apparently bandits and other threats to civilians were not as pronounced during times of "peace" within the empire while whether or not there was peace within the empire, soldiers seem to always be fighting.

The da dao used by these Chinese soldiers is what would now be known (mistakenly) as a zhanmadao or (more correctly) a podao/pudao in martial arts.

I thought the Japanese army was rather exceptional, though, in using long bayonets that were shaped like swords, rather than the short dagger-like types or thin tapered ones favoured by European armies. And officers, of course, had their ceremonial katana swords.

The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the bayonet in 20th-century warfare has been a very controversial topic. I found this recent article by Rob Engen about tactical thinking regarding the bayonet in the First World War to be quite worth reading: www.jmss.org/2006/2006spring/articles/engen.pdf

Engen argues that the desired function of the bayonet for First World War armies was mainly psychological; he also argues that a major influence on this was the supposed success of Japanese bayonet charges in the Russo-Japanese War. But the belief that the bayonet charge gave the attacker a decisive edge in morale would seem to have been taken to extremes in the Second World War with the suicidal 'banzai' bayonet charges attempted by Japanese infantry.

On the contrary, it is the emphasis of training that is the decisive factor here. Military does not spend the amount of time training melee as civilian does. While it is true there are soldiers who specializes in close quarter combat, the majority does not. As I have said before, if your job is to load a shenbinu, then no matter how battle-hardened you are, your skill will remain in artillery. Not melee.

Since infantry are considered a lower-level military unit within the military and even among them close quarter combatants are rather rare compared to archerys. Yet for civilian, it is the non-close-quarter combatants that are rare, then if we pick at random a soldier and a civilian fighter, the chances are the civilian would outclass the soldier. The chances are that they see battle much more often than soldiers and by the nature of their environment they fight melee much more often. A soldier only fight when there is a war. And during the Ming and Qing dynasty (which is what is being discussed here otherwise the whole conversation would not make sense), wars are relatively less common than eras where

As does civlians. The difference is the jianghu deemphasizes on other skills such as archery and things such as artillery are pretty much non-existant. Thus, the time that are spent on training melee weapons as well as hand to hand are greatly increased compared to the military who needs to train the others.



In a group, military combat definately outclass civilians purely because it is what "fighting" means for them. It is the use of mixed arms, coordination, unothodox tactics etc that allows their individual skills to be effective. Yet take these away then their overall effectiveness will be decreased. It is on this individual level that civilian combative methods reaches a higher level of effectiveness.

It is interesting that you should mention Qi Jiguang. If you study this 36 Changquan, you will find that every single move could be found in civilian martial arts.



Actually, in terms of sophistication and developement, the Tactical Revolution have put civilian systems much much more ahead compared to military ones. It never made it into military without some level of downgrade because it is impractical to train an army to that level of sophistication. Simplicity was the key when going to war.

As noted in other threads, if you actually study these "neijia' systems, there are nothing unique about them. When one reaches an advance level, they are quite similar to any waijia system. And that level of sophistication was achieved before taiji was developed.



Wulin is a creation of Wuxia novels. Jianghu on the other hand is as real as any city. Please don't mix fantasy with reality and I would appreciate it if you don't assume any of my statements are by any means influenced by fiction. Jianghu does not limit to fighters. Everything from street performers, roadside small busniess to smalltime pickpockets are a part of it.



Jianghu is not something that only happens in certain times. It is a natural occurance anywhere where reigional government are unable to enforce the law. This exists regardless if there is a war. When you only have a few thousand deputies at your disposal, you can't expect that you can protect everyone. Especially true if areas are hard to reach. Although it is true the when there is war, jianghu becomes much more prevalent as regional government's resources are normally cut to fund the war and/or increased taxation on the farmers means that more people are driven into crime to scratch a living. Before the time of telecommunication and highways, jianghu and their own social structure ruled the rural area as well as the back alleys of cities. They have their own quasi-rules as well as social heriachy which is as real as any society.

Bandits and other threats to civilians does not exist because there is war. They exist because in any society, there will be crime and criminal organizations. It is the quality of soldiers that shifts between times of peace and war. But in poor areas such as Shandong where resources are scarce and the only way to protect one's livelihood through violence, the quality of those who does the fighting remains high throughout the centuries.


Btw, there is no good evidence to show that Chen Wangting was ever in the military. All the sources ever say is that he doned armour and fought bandits. People often jump to conclusion based on those few lines because they thought that armour means military (which doesn't) and that he thanked someone for surviving which could easily be interpreted as the gods. The house of Chen was only made a quasi-governmental peace keeping force in the area decades after Chen's death.

Training with empty hand does not turn one into a war machine. From my experience hunting deer/wild boar I found out that my Hmong friends are much better at chopping through the ribcage of an animal w/ a machete than I am. That is because they do it all the time , and their muscles have that "memory" of how much force to exert. When I chop at a bone I make a mess and my cuts are everywhere. That's because muscle fatigue sets in for me, and I cannot control the machete blade as well as a seasoned person can.
The same theory applies to swords and weapons. A soldier who trains with heavy weapons all the time will develop muscles and sinews that handle that particular weapon well. A farmer may be hardy all over, but his muscles will be used to one set of use, and not another. By this I mean the farmer may develop strong arm and leg muscles from plowing after a cow, but this does not necessarily mean he can swing a sword or wield a spear effectively.
I would put my bets on a seasoned soldier rather than a Shaolin monk who mostly trains empty handed.
Your body just does not develop the right muscle strength and tone w/o training with heavy weapons.
The value of empty handed training lies more in footwork, but then again in training for war the soldiers are usually taught an abbreviated form, basic and practical, and the fancy stuff is discarded.
The video I watched about the 29th Dao Dao brigade commented that the soldiers were given abbreviated training. Like how to parry a bayonet, raise the sword above the head, and chop downwards. These soldiers are being trained to kill, not for Beijing opera.

Boarhuntr

Boarhuntr, I believe you are unfamiliar with the jianghu of China. Many Chinese civilians, even farmers, are master fighters. And as I have pointed out, in melee, their skills generally surpass that of an average soldier who does not emphasize on melee combat.

And no, Chinese martial artists train with a huge arsenal of weapons, not just empty hand. Some weapons such as a kaishanhu are even heavier than the military version.

I would recommend reading a little of the history of Chinese civilian martial arts developement. The debate so far is specifically to point out of misguided sterotype that civilians are lower quality fighters compared to soldiers. This may only be true in places outside of China where civilian combat developement never reached such a level.



I find this to be borderline insulting considering the topic at hand. Please do not use such ignorant attitude.

How is that insulting? Soldiers do train to kill.

It's insulting martial arts, sounds like "martial arts is just dancing & for show and wouldn't compare to someone that has been trained to 'kill', like in the military". A lot of martial arts is trained to kill, going for the neck, temple, eyes.

History Noob, just because they are civilian trained doesn't mean they are "monkeys" or bullshido, although there are a lot of McDojos these days.

Yea, I completely agree that martial arts were made for killing and maiming. I just don't understand why when Boarhuntr said "The video I watched about the 29th Dao Dao brigade commented that the soldiers were given abbreviated training. Like how to parry a bayonet, raise the sword above the head, and chop downwards. These soldiers are being trained to kill, not for Beijing opera." would be considered insulting, when it's pretty much straightforward and fact.

Soldiers do train in martial arts to kill. How is that insulting?

I guess because of the last bit. It sounds practical but it also sounds like belittling martial arts. I see how boar got his point across though... but it was a bit wrong.

Here I am, Mr. Boarhuntr. Sorry, I didn't mean to belittle martial arts. Perhaps my last remark was a bit flippant. Didn't mean for it to come across like that. As to my ignorance of Chinese martial arts history, yes, I plead guilty. But that is why I joined the forum, is to get feedback from people more learned than I in certain matters.
I do have some issues w/ Martial arts as a whole because I feel they've been very stylized. Bruce Lee style high kicks, flashy jumps, flying kicks, somersaults. All that was developed by practitioners to earn a living in the marketplace so they can attract paying customer. Pass the hat and put some coins in the monkeys' hat. That's how it was, a roadside show.
On the battlefield I guarantee that if one uses a flying kick to the had you won't last long. Even in Kenpo they advise practioners not to kick above the thighs or pelvis. Go above those areas and you seriously risk being off balance. Try a high kick to someone's head and you will get it in the groin. Nobody is fast enough to do a flying kick unless the enemy is already incapacitated, like doubled up in pain from a kick to the groin or abdomen.
Then again we have these Wuxia characters flying on top of buildings, or bouncing up and down on top of bamboo trees. It all makes great movies and story telling, but on the battlefield you are still bound by gravity, and you don't want that 200 lb gorilla of an enemy on top of you.
I wouldn't doubt that certain farmers who have great physical strength and ardently practice martial arts can beat an average soldier . But most farmers work long hard hours just to make a living. Where in the world would he have time to practice martial arts ? At the end of the day he shoulders his plow on shoulders and curses his buffalo to walk home. He probably rests a bit while the buffalo cools off in a pond. He takes a smoke or drinks some tea, looking to going home and having some porridge or mantou for dinner.
The Jianhu type that are being talked about are probably ex-farmers who've lost their farms to some rich blueblood and has no where to turn but to turn into a Hsia or bandit or vagrant. That is when they turn from using the sickle and machete to swords , and their biendang to spears and polearms. I'm not saying this hasn't happened or is not possible, but most farmers just aren't into fighting.
Melee fighting. Yes, that happens when villages band together to fight bandits and robbers , usually when the Guan ping are unwilling or not around to do the dirty job. In this instance maybe the few town soldiers (guanbing) are lazy good for nothing rascals, unwilling to train or chase after bandits, not unless they're bribed or somebody important puts the fear of god (or the Emperor) into them. In this case the farmers who are motivated to defend their farms might turn out to be better fighters than the official soldiers.
But then again we are talking about the exception to the rule.
I found out from a roommate who practiced Jeet Chuan Do that a person wielding a staff is at a great disadvantage facing a person with a sword. He told me to get a broomstick to parry one of his strikes with a sword. In slow motion. I blocked a blow from above with the staff, held horizontally, and right away he slid his sword down the length of the broomstick and "sliced" my hand. Without a handguard, my hands were totally unprotected. A machete wielder would suffer the same fate---no handguard.
So the civilian fighter is at a great disadvantage compared to a professional soldier, both in physical aspects of training and type of weaponry.
Let the great debates begin !

Boarhuntr

I seems to me you are not "learning" anything as opposed imposing your own views and personal opinions.

Modern martial arts community have adapted to the captialism of the world. In the past, the head of the school have absolute authority and if one does not train well, they get booted. A school is successful or not based on their reputation which comes from their battle records with other schools. These days, the success of a school is based on the level of marketing and appeal to the general public. The concept of a consumer 'choice' have been instilled and thus the school now bends to the desires of the learner. Which in turn degrades the quality of what is being taught.

Don't presume to think that the modern world's values is applicable in the ancient times.



And on the streets, trying to load a Shenbinu will get your killed too.

I hope you can keep this discussion respectable and not put fiction into it. Fiction has got nothing to do with what we are discussing.



In the ancient times, 3-4 hours in the morning and 3-4 hours in the evening. People back then worked a lot harder than they do now.

Again, you presume to know something that you have absolutely no knowledge on. If you do not wish to learn, at the very least have some respect of those who do and don't imput incorrect information



Actually, in the rural areas of China, that is the general rule. In fact, it is the uncommon for deputies to be in those areas in the first place. The regional govenment simply does not have that kind of resources. So civilians are left to fend for themselves. It is in the cities that the government deputies might do their job.



There is no debate here except for the one between me and Yun. So far, you offer nothing except heresay, pop culture and personal opinion.