Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
This is absolutely beautiful and, IMHO, quite useless in real war. I am not talking about technological differential ( machine gun vs. spear).
At the battle of Sobraon, British and Gurkha infantry penetrated heavily defended Sikh lines and engaged them in a close combat ( General Gough, as usual, trusted in bayonet only). Despite being outnumbered ( 15,000 vs. 40,000), the Brits prevailed quite easily. Obviously, martial arts expertise and choreography did not help the Khalsa force.
Martial arts of any kind are good only for movies, show-type competition and, occasionally, for one-on-one encounters. Wars require tactics, strategy, discipline, leadership and general fighting spirit of the troops.
|
I agree with kronckew and would also like to add that fighting styles work for their environment. Japanese Samurai were undoubtedly good fighters. However they were in no way equipped (skill/weapon-wise) for the nomadic horsemanship of the Mongols. The Khalsa were often skillful individual warriors, but morale, leadership, and other factors play a big role in terms of victory... it is like a big company, even if you have a skillful workforce, mismanagement of the company will still lead to failure. It is not the fault of the skill workforce, it is the management.
Remember Hannibal's Cannae? I don't, but I've read about it... the Carthaginian force made up of loyal Libyans, Cathaginians, Numidians, as well as semi-loyal Iberians and Celts were extremely outnumbered by the Romans. Troop quality-wise, the Romans tended to be average, majority of the troops being levied citizens serving as Hastatii, but they tended to be well organized and brave as they were defending their homelands... where-as the Carthaginian forces were mercenaries and professional soldiers - obviously the majority were men who chose war as their career. Though outnumbered these men defeated the enormous Roman forces. The martial skills play a role in the individual melee between fighters.. the tactics to manage the troops just before and during the thick of battle... and the strategy to win the war. The warriors had the skills, Hannibal had the genius to win those battles... but they did not win the war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by t_c
In regards to the whole Buddha teaching martial arts theory: I've always had a problem with that one too - no offense David. I'd love to find out the original source for those theories, whether it was oral traditions or written history. I could see how he would have taught them internal and external practices along the lines of something similar to Yoga, but as far as martial arts goes, the theory seems to ignore two major points (IMHO): the Buddhist teachings of the Eightfold Path (a dedication to peace) and the history of Chinese warfare. I just can't reconcile the contradiction and the omission.
|
I agree. Buddha, was said to have been a great martial artist, horse-rider, etc. but it seems he had given all that up, in addition to princely life to seek the truth... That there was contact between China and India is undoubtable, but that Boddhidharma
taught the Shaolin monks martial arts, and thus the rest of China doesn't even appeal to common sense. The Chinese have been warring with each other for a long time before Buddhism hit the block. Like you mentioned "history of Chinese warfare", it is a brutal affair... while in India, histories claim that farmers could plow their fields while soldiers battled in the next... China's histories seem to glorify generals' ruthlessness in destroying infrastructure, slaughtering enemies, massacring opposing lineages and all their relations, and striking with speed and cunning most of all.
War meant something different to different people. War for sacrifice, War for head-hunting. War for blood-feud. War for dynastic supremacy. War for total control. War for genocide... they entail different goals and demand different tactics. The Taiwanese warrior was a great headhunter, but he and all the social factors with him, would have a hard time coping with Chinese encroachment. The Aztec warrior was a tough m*f*, but he sought to take prisoners, not specifically to kill. Still, I am sure Taiwanese warriors did often shoot, with rifle and bow, instead of rush in with a long knife... and that the Aztecs launched volleys of darts and arrows into enemy ranks before charging. Europeans during WW1 found themselves armed with weapons demanding a different war strategy than they were used to. They had perfect war doctrine for their type of war.
My thoughts
