Shastarvidiya video

t_c · 26th June 2009, 10:00 PM

Thanks Lew - that's great to see.
I don't know my history very well, but I see a lot of similar movements & tactics to some forms of Silat - it could be personal bias, but it still makes me wonder about the history of the arts and past influences....

katana · 26th June 2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t_c

I don't know my history very well, but I see a lot of similar movements & tactics to some forms of Silat - it could be personal bias, but it still makes me wonder about the history of the arts and past influences....

Hi TC
my understanding is that there are several theories of martial arts 'travelling' from India to China (Bodhidharma taught his fighting arts to the Shaolin Monks in the 6th C) . However, I believe that many martial arts originated independently. The mechanics/ abillities and limitations of the human body would dictate the techniques etc would be very similar or the same to other martial arts who's origins were independent and seperate.

Regards David

KuKulzA28 · 27th June 2009, 06:08 AM

That is fascinating!

I think it is bogus for one to assume that there was one fountain of the martial arts for the rest of the world. I would make sense for any society engaged in war to develop better fighting arts and technology to survive. Some say Greek Pankration "inspired" Indian martial arts... a land that had been at war and mobilizing large forces long before Alexander was even born. Some say Kalaripayattu inspired Shaolin fighting. The Shaolin monks weren't different from any other monastery back in the day, and each monastery had to defend itself from brigands, and they were also resting places for travelers and war-weary warriors. Obviously a martial artist earning his keep at a monastery could teach the resident monk-militia how to better defend itself. Yet no fighting is without outside influence. Weapons, technology, and technique spreads. That and the human body moves effectively in only so many ways. Wrestling all looks like wrestling, with some local variations. etc.etc.

To say that Greek fighting, various Indian fighting style, and Chinese fighting styles didn't influence other is wrong... but others knew of and had their own style of fighting before they absorbed outside influences. While Okinawan nobles learned Tang Dynasty Kung Fu, and the Japanese in turn learned from them... doesn't make Okinawan or Japanese fighting a Chinese art. That Filipinos were taught "Kun Tao" by Chinese merchants doesn't mean Filipino fighting arts aren't Filipino. That the kuntaw of the Hoklo taxcollector in Indonesia greatly impressed the local Silat-users, doesn't mean they aren't native Indonesian fighters after they incorporated some Kuntaw...

ariel · 27th June 2009, 05:29 PM

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.

kronckew · 27th June 2009, 07:58 PM

warriors fight as individuals, soldiers fight as units. one reason the greeks, brits and the romans tended to beat armies that outnumbered them.

it takes decades to train a warrior like that. it takes months to train a soldier to be able to kill him.

Battara · 27th June 2009, 07:58 PM

I don't know Ariel. While it is true that tactics, strategy, etc are needed in war, the Moro guerillas and PI armies have been fighting using these and FMA. Also don't forget that Lapu Lapu on Mactan dispatched Magellan with superior numbers, strategy, leadership, and some martial arts. Just one example.

t_c · 27th June 2009, 08:53 PM

David I definitely agree about body dynamics and mechanics - there are really only so many ways a joint moves and we all the same number of joints (hopefully). It was really more of a "feeling" of similarity between Shastarvidiya and some of the Silat I have seen (specifically the open hand segment of the video). Again, it's just my own limited experience. I really don't pretend to have seen it all by any means or mean to imply that one is derived from the other, but it was the tactical response that struck me: how he chose to put the movements together and the choices between manipulation and striking and vice versa along with positioning, etc. From the little history I think I understand there was an early Indian population in Indonesia and I've often wondered about aspects of Indian martial arts being reflected in the arts of Indonesia. The traditional martial arts of India have always been a bit of a mystery for me - I've just never been exposed to them. I think it would be great to participate in something like this. I understand the argument for independent martial development in cultures, and I agree with it, but then again, nothing is ever absolute. When people migrated from India to Indonesia perhaps there was some sharing of martial practices along with native development.

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 with you on your point Ariel - State warfare is a much different beast than personal combat, but a soldier still has to know how to use his tools. Even modern Bayonet technique is being shaped by classical spear usage.

Regarding the video: It's nice to see the old world arts being preserved (it seems like we already lost all the European traditions to the gun), and to also see the traditional weapons in context is priceless.

Atlantia · 27th June 2009, 10:25 PM

Grat Clip Louie, cheers for posting.
Particularly like the twin axe moves, but he generally seems to be rather proficient. Interesting to see how he uses the Tulwar and makes short cuts to several key areas instead of one devastating 'slash'

KuKulzA28 · 27th June 2009, 10:54 PM

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

kronckew · 27th June 2009, 08:06 PM

the use of the khukuris near the end of the video was cool...

Sikh_soldier · 29th June 2009, 07:16 PM

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.

Fair point, but that is assuming that the Khalsa force were all trained in and deployed this particular martial art.

Also here is another link to the martial art:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvYU0...rom=PL&index=8

fearn · 4th July 2009, 11:58 PM

Hi All,

Well, it's the Fourth of July (Happy 4th to all!) and I was cutting up some tomatoes for dinner. Ah hah, time to try cutting with a khukuri, and see how khukuris slice.

The answer: about as well as a table knife. Here were the factors that affected the test. 1. Neither khukuri was shaving sharp, as I'd been clearing brush with them and hadn't resharpened them yet. 2. The tomatoes were fairly firm romas, not squishy beefsteaks. After testing the khukuris and kitchen knives, I found that an ordinary table knife cut the roma tomato as well as the khukuris, at least in terms of the amount of force needed. Sharp kitchen knives of all sorts cut with much less force. The difference was gentle pressure from a single finger on the kitchen knives, vs. firm pressure from whole hand for the khukuris and the table knife.

Now, what can I generalize from this? Yes, it is possible to slice with a khukuri. On the other hand, it's not great, and it will work better if you have it really, really sharp (as with all slicing blades). So yes, it is more-or-less possible to slice someone's throat with a khukuri, as shown in the video. It's also possible to slice someone's throat with an axe, if it's sharp enough. I don't think that slicing is an ideal stroke for either khukuris or axes though, and I'm certainly not going to depend on it working, not that I ever intend to get into a khukuri fight with anyone. As we all know, there are better ways to use these blades.

Time to resharpen, I think.

Best,

F

KuKulzA28 · 24th August 2009, 12:24 AM

Thanks for doing the experiment fearn!

I wonder if there is a difference in kukri usage depending on the place and time? Perhaps the kukri was a utility blade for the Sikh/N.Indian soldier, but when a battle was to begin the next day, wouldn't he want his kukri sharpened up real good? After-all he wasn't going to be hacking at trees but a lot of unarmored men and a few armored ones? It may also be that he's doing this in the 'context' of being surrounded, and so a quick incapacitation may be better and quicker than a clean decapitiation.... after all, his own side's soldiers with their swords, maces, spears, axes, kurkis, guns, etc. can finish off a dying/crippled enemy, but a dying/crippled enemy is unlikely to kill him...

It may also be a stylistic matter. Some martial arts deem it unsafe to fully commit to a strike... and would rather win via manipulations/strategy and striking to weak targets. Perhaps it is a conservative approach?

Another thing that might affect why he is doing it that way is that he was showing manipulation techniques... and using you hand and kukri to manipulate the opponent up-close, it is very likely that in the time you take to raise your hand high to chop down, the opponent can escape and counter. Where-as transitioning right to a slice from a manipulation is quicker (but less fatal I think).

If you notice that's the same thing with the ax... there are a few chops, but when he is manipulating the opponent or the opponent's weapon, he uses a quick thrust or slice rather than rearing back and chopping. With the double axes he will entangle/disarm the opponent, then pin with one and chop with the other, or hack away with both...

Also, the video did not show the entire event, it's possible there was some more intuitive and conventional kukri use in there

4th July 2009, 11:58 PM	#12
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Khukuri vs. tomato Hi All, Well, it's the Fourth of July (Happy 4th to all!) and I was cutting up some tomatoes for dinner. Ah hah, time to try cutting with a khukuri, and see how khukuris slice. The answer: about as well as a table knife. Here were the factors that affected the test. 1. Neither khukuri was shaving sharp, as I'd been clearing brush with them and hadn't resharpened them yet. 2. The tomatoes were fairly firm romas, not squishy beefsteaks. After testing the khukuris and kitchen knives, I found that an ordinary table knife cut the roma tomato as well as the khukuris, at least in terms of the amount of force needed. Sharp kitchen knives of all sorts cut with much less force. The difference was gentle pressure from a single finger on the kitchen knives, vs. firm pressure from whole hand for the khukuris and the table knife. Now, what can I generalize from this? Yes, it is possible to slice with a khukuri. On the other hand, it's not great, and it will work better if you have it really, really sharp (as with all slicing blades). So yes, it is more-or-less possible to slice someone's throat with a khukuri, as shown in the video. It's also possible to slice someone's throat with an axe, if it's sharp enough. I don't think that slicing is an ideal stroke for either khukuris or axes though, and I'm certainly not going to depend on it working, not that I ever intend to get into a khukuri fight with anyone. As we all know, there are better ways to use these blades. Time to resharpen, I think. Best, F

26th June 2009, 10:00 PM	#1
t_c Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: ca, usa Posts: 92	Thanks Lew - that's great to see. I don't know my history very well, but I see a lot of similar movements & tactics to some forms of Silat - it could be personal bias, but it still makes me wonder about the history of the arts and past influences....

27th June 2009, 06:08 AM	#3
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	That is fascinating! I think it is bogus for one to assume that there was one fountain of the martial arts for the rest of the world. I would make sense for any society engaged in war to develop better fighting arts and technology to survive. Some say Greek Pankration "inspired" Indian martial arts... a land that had been at war and mobilizing large forces long before Alexander was even born. Some say Kalaripayattu inspired Shaolin fighting. The Shaolin monks weren't different from any other monastery back in the day, and each monastery had to defend itself from brigands, and they were also resting places for travelers and war-weary warriors. Obviously a martial artist earning his keep at a monastery could teach the resident monk-militia how to better defend itself. Yet no fighting is without outside influence. Weapons, technology, and technique spreads. That and the human body moves effectively in only so many ways. Wrestling all looks like wrestling, with some local variations. etc.etc. To say that Greek fighting, various Indian fighting style, and Chinese fighting styles didn't influence other is wrong... but others knew of and had their own style of fighting before they absorbed outside influences. While Okinawan nobles learned Tang Dynasty Kung Fu, and the Japanese in turn learned from them... doesn't make Okinawan or Japanese fighting a Chinese art. That Filipinos were taught "Kun Tao" by Chinese merchants doesn't mean Filipino fighting arts aren't Filipino. That the kuntaw of the Hoklo taxcollector in Indonesia greatly impressed the local Silat-users, doesn't mean they aren't native Indonesian fighters after they incorporated some Kuntaw...

27th June 2009, 05:29 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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.

27th June 2009, 07:58 PM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	warriors fight as individuals, soldiers fight as units. one reason the greeks, brits and the romans tended to beat armies that outnumbered them. it takes decades to train a warrior like that. it takes months to train a soldier to be able to kill him.

27th June 2009, 07:58 PM	#6
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,280	I don't know Ariel. While it is true that tactics, strategy, etc are needed in war, the Moro guerillas and PI armies have been fighting using these and FMA. Also don't forget that Lapu Lapu on Mactan dispatched Magellan with superior numbers, strategy, leadership, and some martial arts. Just one example.

27th June 2009, 08:53 PM	#7
t_c Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: ca, usa Posts: 92	David I definitely agree about body dynamics and mechanics - there are really only so many ways a joint moves and we all the same number of joints (hopefully). It was really more of a "feeling" of similarity between Shastarvidiya and some of the Silat I have seen (specifically the open hand segment of the video). Again, it's just my own limited experience. I really don't pretend to have seen it all by any means or mean to imply that one is derived from the other, but it was the tactical response that struck me: how he chose to put the movements together and the choices between manipulation and striking and vice versa along with positioning, etc. From the little history I think I understand there was an early Indian population in Indonesia and I've often wondered about aspects of Indian martial arts being reflected in the arts of Indonesia. The traditional martial arts of India have always been a bit of a mystery for me - I've just never been exposed to them. I think it would be great to participate in something like this. I understand the argument for independent martial development in cultures, and I agree with it, but then again, nothing is ever absolute. When people migrated from India to Indonesia perhaps there was some sharing of martial practices along with native development. 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 with you on your point Ariel - State warfare is a much different beast than personal combat, but a soldier still has to know how to use his tools. Even modern Bayonet technique is being shaped by classical spear usage. Regarding the video: It's nice to see the old world arts being preserved (it seems like we already lost all the European traditions to the gun), and to also see the traditional weapons in context is priceless.

27th June 2009, 10:25 PM	#8
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Grat Clip Louie, cheers for posting. Particularly like the twin axe moves, but he generally seems to be rather proficient. Interesting to see how he uses the Tulwar and makes short cuts to several key areas instead of one devastating 'slash'

27th June 2009, 08:06 PM	#10
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	the use of the khukuris near the end of the video was cool...

24th August 2009, 12:24 AM	#13
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	Thanks for doing the experiment fearn! I wonder if there is a difference in kukri usage depending on the place and time? Perhaps the kukri was a utility blade for the Sikh/N.Indian soldier, but when a battle was to begin the next day, wouldn't he want his kukri sharpened up real good? After-all he wasn't going to be hacking at trees but a lot of unarmored men and a few armored ones? It may also be that he's doing this in the 'context' of being surrounded, and so a quick incapacitation may be better and quicker than a clean decapitiation.... after all, his own side's soldiers with their swords, maces, spears, axes, kurkis, guns, etc. can finish off a dying/crippled enemy, but a dying/crippled enemy is unlikely to kill him... It may also be a stylistic matter. Some martial arts deem it unsafe to fully commit to a strike... and would rather win via manipulations/strategy and striking to weak targets. Perhaps it is a conservative approach? Another thing that might affect why he is doing it that way is that he was showing manipulation techniques... and using you hand and kukri to manipulate the opponent up-close, it is very likely that in the time you take to raise your hand high to chop down, the opponent can escape and counter. Where-as transitioning right to a slice from a manipulation is quicker (but less fatal I think). If you notice that's the same thing with the ax... there are a few chops, but when he is manipulating the opponent or the opponent's weapon, he uses a quick thrust or slice rather than rearing back and chopping. With the double axes he will entangle/disarm the opponent, then pin with one and chop with the other, or hack away with both... Also, the video did not show the entire event, it's possible there was some more intuitive and conventional kukri use in there