Martial arts?

I think that martial arts have had a very significant impact on the world.
Bolth for it's phisical and mental disaplin, this should be honored in civ I think.
The basic foundation for most all martial art's started with early chines kungfu, then spred to the Korean takwando a deadly form of kungfu, some of the minorasian people also developed forms of martial arts, sutch as the Philipins, stick fighting ext.

This part of Chinese culture has had a tremendous impact on the world, and captured the interest of almost all exsiting races of humanity.
Martial arts are also a spiritual institution in manifest of the phisical, the art of expressing one-self through physical means and capabilitys of the body through mental concept. I think china should have the ability to grow culturaly through this in the ggame

Now I understand that just about every culture has had some sort of combat training,(martial arts) the Greek started wrestling compitision, the Roamans had gladiators and laied out stratigy using the minral resource's they had avalible like the turtle shell, where the used there shiled's to protect the whole line to minimise the casualty of arrows falling on them while storming a castle, one portion of the African developed kupoweta (I can't find how to spell this).
None of these compare to the asian martial arts. I belive that a kungfu master is more capable than a swordsman, espsialy if wepon's are considerd.

Anyways give me your opinion or thought's on this maby use martial arts tactics, as a civ spucific abilty, if this is possible.

I think the chinese civ is owed this.

Maybe it could be a great wonder. The civ that builds it could get a 10% combat bonus for all of their units. I don't think that's too overpowering but definitely worth building.

Wrong. I'm sorry, but I've been studying this for a bit, so I can tell you a bit. Asian martial arts are not actually better than European martial arts; they just weren't forgotten. Basically, Western mentality dictates that we sort of abandon things that are out-dated, so when we got guns, we sort of discarded most of our "martial arts."

Keep in mind that you have to properly define martial arts, so here we go. Martial arts are the personal techniques that are used to win fights. Most of the ancient martial arts techniques were developed first for weapons and then for empty hands, as someone with a weapon should almost always beat someone without one (even with a significant training disparity.) Yes, the Greeks developed a wrestling technique, but they also studied striking, etc. Basically, they wanted to win fights, and though it is not reflected in Civ 3, they were a very militaristic society. Also, the knights of yore were extreme warriors. They lived solely for fighting, so if you're going to tell me that they were not highly developed martial artists, then you're nuts.

Only recently, scholars and curious martial artists have been digging up the ancient and Rennaisance fighting manuals of Europe, and they have been learning a great deal. For more information (including a scholarly break-down of the hypothetical knight vs. samuri battle,) check out www.thearma.org.

One other note: the most effective modern martial arts involve guns. Just because guns are ancient, doesn't mean that they are not martial arts material.

Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:

Entry: Matial arts,
any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defence or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination WITHOUT WEPONS, as karate, aikido, judo, or kungfu, often practiced as sport.

Bruce Lee said somthing to the effect, that the martial arts are the ultimate exspetion of the human body developed through exersize and training to develope coordination and mental perception to achive the physical aim.
Kung fu was developed by the anciant chinese, and a Sholin worior can take down a wepond aponent and incapasitate him/her in 4 mooves or less, they are fully trained to negate wepon's trained professional's while under atack.
They succeed also by sing less obvious means such as spycology subtle sugestion ext.

so it is in this light that I claim the Asian martial arts are supirior to the anciant, European fencing, or the greek wrestiling, or any other western style of martial fighting. All I'm trying to prove is that the asian style martial art's are in fact supirior compared to other anciant or midevil formes of martial fighting, and this is why they where not forgotten or made obsoleat because of it's supremicy in over all style and every-bit usfull today same as then to increase longevity and improve over all health and bring oneness to mind and body, and fencing or anciant Euro. armorment practices are not that usfull today in any practical sence since thes forms require that one use one or mor sword's and no one caries swords around these days. But yes I agree for there time they where verry skilled in there process.

Quote:
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:
Entry: Matial arts,
any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defence or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination WITHOUT WEPONS, as karate, aikido, judo, or kungfu, often practiced as sport.

This dictionary entry is rather erronious. I can't find the reference right now, but the term "martial art" was first used in the Rennaissance to describe a rapier swordsman. At least, its roots are in personal fighting technique... with a weapon!

Regarding Bruce Lee, I am currently taking a class in the art that he developed-- Jeet Kune Do. We practice stick fighting. More advanced students also practice knife and nunchuck fighting. This further backs up my point. If my instructor is to be believed, Bruce Lee would also feel that an armed opponent is always at an advantage over an unarmed opponent. This idea also works well in Civilization, as your units get more and better weapons as you advance.

Without actually looking into European art forms, you have no idea what it entails. Yes, there is a larger emphasis on modern Eastern art forms, but that is only because we have almost forgotten European forms, just as only recently have we begun to rediscover the skill of European arms-makers (which were at the same level of Japanese katana-makers. Comparing the two is a bit difficult, though, because the differences in style and armor have effects on the end design of the weapon.) Also, note that there are other European unarmed art forms to note. Savate is one; boxing is another. Keep in mind that the Romans made a point of gathering people the world over for their gladitorial combat, mostly because they had a fascination in people's different styles.

Boxing and wrestling are difficult to call absolute fighting art forms, because both are restricted by sport rules. Modern sport fencing and sport Judo have the same problems.

While I would love to defend African and pre-Columbian American arts, I don't know enough to start. I can say that Capoeira isn't a martial art so much as it is a dance, but that is probably not the only thing to come out of Africa, as it is a rather big continent with a very diverse population. I can tell you that the Jews developed a decent stick-fighting system.

Asian martial arts are great and varied. They are now well-documented, and many of them are brutally effective. The only reason that they are revered today as much as they are, though, is because they were kept in the traditions of monastaries and the like. (Can you imagine Christian monks maintaining a fighting tradition? Er, except for the Knights Hospitilar, who were disbanded...)

I could go on, but I have clearly digressed a bit.

This ditcionary definition is exact I typed it out as it appears on page1180, second coulom 5/8 of the way down, I only uppercased the words without wepon's, no other changes where made. BTW, the term is not martial art it is martial arts. the term martial art dose not appear in my dictionary.

The western peopole where certainly martial being dessposed to war and employed martial tactic's but they still don't compair to the asian martial art's.

I do understand Jeet Kune Do very well and I hold a tremendous amount of respect for the philosphy's and teaching's of Bruce Lee.
He culminated and consructed a centralised sys,"use what you can and discard the rest" that will forever change the evouloution of the martial arts.
Well, now I'm disgressing.

Anyway in the begining I think China should have some sort of martial arts advantage

First of all, forget the Randomhouse dictionary. Get the complete version of the Oxford English Dictionary. It will give you all definitions and the full entimology of each word.

Okay, I understand that you are an Asian fan-boy. I'll leave it at that. If you want to move beyond that, I recommend actually studying actual martial arts. And then respect martial artists of other cultures and styles.

I'v studied advanced martial arts wepon's now for four year's +.
I also have aqatinces that have been studing Euorpean rennaissance sword fighting since they where born I very well know what it is and respect my ancestorial past achivemnt's, and I plan on doing trainig together with them (my aquatinces not my ancestor's).
Now what you are trying to say I think is that you disagree with what this thred is ment to sugest. Am I right?

Hi!

MA: this thing is not exclusivly orient.

There were many European MAs.

The most devastating was the one with Zweihanders(two-handed swords).

The wielder had to be strong and enduring, but after he acquired these qualities he was almost invincible.

Why?

Don't think that huge swords were that heavy. In truth a one hand held weapon was aroun 0,5-1,5-2 Kg(a sabre to longsword), and a zweihander was maximum 4-5 Kg.

So these zweihanders were whirled around the wielder and stopped almost every attack that was made against him.

It was difficult to launch attacks with zweihanders, but they didn't really attacked. They just marched forward in to the battle and directed themselves to the enemy. In the enemy wanted to come any closer they just chopped it(and they borke the larger weapons such as the pike). So with this whirling style almost nobody could beat them.
Only bows and crossbows and terrain was there only enemy(heavy cavalry(knights) would have been an other threat too, but at that time is was almost non-existent).

Another MA was the nomadic horse-bowing:
They could ride in a certain direction and fire their arrows in to the opposite direction.
With the horses they could be overcome with diffculty, beacuse it was almost impossible to reach them with melee weapons.

Another was bearserking(bear cloak) that has to be learned("disciplined") in order to use it at full effectiveness. So it was not just some kind of frenzy-state. I heard even, that it was some rare form of epilepsy but I doubt it.

That's all.

a kung fu dude dosent stand a chance against a swordsman,skilled with his weapon,and wearing some armour

dont belive me?

then how come chinese warriors also used armour + sword when it was availabe?


i read somewhere that kung fu,and the like was invented to give the peaseants a way to defend themselves,they also started training with farming tools as weapons and even simple sticks
i think to fend off the invading japanese

i can see how 4 kung fu dudes with stick could probably kick a samurais ass(or any skilled swordsman from any nation)

i dont see the stick guy walking away 1 on 1


one would think if unarmed fighting was more effective than sword fighting u would see armies of karate kicking guys as opposed to guys with armour and sword

hell im sure i could beat the crap out of 99% of all kung fu dudes out there if armed with a baseboll bat or a good iron pipe
and vice versa id much rather be kicked than stabbed with a sword


ps.berserkers(bärsärk in swedish) where dudes armed with swords and fuled up on magic shrooms

kinda like beermuscle,made them feel immortal and invincible

Sorry, Taltho, but nanoboy's right on this. Circumstances in various Asian countries have led to development of some pretty cool unarmed fighting techniques, and have led to many of those techniques being handed down to modern times, but there is nothing inherently better about them than fighting methods from elsewhere in the world. Anyone who dedicates their entire life to mastery of a particular type of fighting is bound to be pretty awesome at it, and throughout history and throughout the world, there have been people who have dedicated their lives to fighting: Asia has no monopoly on that.

Asian culture seems very exotic and interesting to many westerners, and martial arts such as kung fu have captured popular imagination in the west. But the kung fu popularied in movies is often pretty different from that actually practiced by "kung fu masters". The fact that unarmed combat techniques developed long ago in Asia are popular worldwide today is more a testament to how cool they look in movies than how "superior" they are to anything else in reality.

What your dictionary says really doesn't matter: even dictionaries aren't always correct (as shown by the simple fact that different dictionaries sometimes have slightly different definitions for the same word).

As to whether a "kung fu master" is more capable than a swordsman, it depends on what you mean here. Someone who has spent decades mastering kung fu may indeed be cooler than someone who spent a few weeks learning fencing at summer camp, and, perhaps, a "master" of kung fu may even be able to defeat a novice swordsman in real combat. But the fair comparison is with someone who has spent decades mastering use of a sword, and in that case, there's no question that the sword is a more effective weapon than the hand or foot. As someone with over 18 years experience training in Asian martial arts, I can assure you that there is no magic ability to defy that reality. If I had to fight someone with a sword (and the knowledge to use it well) then I wouldn't hesitate to trade my 18 years experience for a sword of my own and a year or two experience with it.

jawz II puts it very well: Chinese warriors used swords and armor... so did Japanese Samurai. Unarmed combat styles typically have one of two reasons for being born: (1) exercise/health of the participants (in which case, cool, but that doesn't make them superior for winning fights) or (2) a desperate attempt to defend against enemies when no weapons are avaiable (in which case the people inventing the martial arts probably wish they could have weapons and are just doing the best they can without them).

Your suggestion is that martial arts (the unarmed kind) should show up in Civ - that the Chinese civ is "owed" this. No disrespect to China, but they aren't owed anything at all. And I'm sure that many Chinese people would have a long list of Chinese cultural and historical concepts that would be cool to see in the game, with "kung fu" would probably not be at the top of the list.

I think martial arts are really cool. I don't think they're really relevant to Civ at all.

Heh.

Well, there is "Warrior Code", and "Military Tradition", not to mention "Sun Tzu's Art of War"

Then several civs have their UU's, like "Samurai" and "Impi" and "Immortals"

So there's a lot of stuff already in Civ3 that would seem to pretty well cover "martial arts"

Now, if you want to add a modern wonder, like "Jackie Chan's Film School", then maybe it's a good idea.

DD

.......How many soliders do you know that know ANYTHING about martial arts? Very few.

Martial arts is all types of combat: Indian Wrestling, Kung Fu, Western Boxing.......

To be honest, it has no real impact in History, as Chinese warriors did not fight hand to hand in battle....for obvious reasons...


There is little use for it in CIV, as everyone gets this idea Chinese Martial arts are taught by some bloke on top of a mystic mountain(think Pai Mei). I'm Taught by my British PE teacher, in my school gym. In Reality, It is a sport nowadays (which i enjoy competeing in) and a method of exercise.

(You can trust me on this, im a martial artist!)

Modern Oriental martial arts would probably beat a European Warrior, but that is probably due to longevity and development over so many years. As was stated, european cultures liked to abandon the old for something new. I'm sure if the European styles stuck around, they would be equally deadly.

However, a martial arts guy could beat anyone, even a tank, if his name began with Chuck and ended in Norris.

Really, I think the guys up there said it best. To the Europeans, in the crusades they took an 18 year old, gave him a sword and a master and he learned by fighting Arabs. Very little training. Now Grand Kung Fu master Kyobi who has spent the past 40 years of his life studying and perfecting martial arts could probably take him down. But the 18 year old's master who is a veteran of the last crusade and has been a knight for many years, with armor, sword, horse, etc., would probably bring Grand Master Kyobi down. However, I think this could be implemented into Civ 4. It could be gotten by a wonder or a tech you'd get slightly before Civil Service, or around there, and you could train Martial Arts master. He could have around 5 power, and 1 movement, maybe +20% against melee, so he wouldn't be that great for that late. But the bonus would be, he could be built with NO resources. Good if you're stuck on an island with no horses, iron, or bronze(ouch). Might be kind of interesting

Balázs said:

Hi!

MA: this thing is not exclusivly orient.

There were many European MAs.

The most devastating was the one with Zweihanders(two-handed swords).

The wielder had to be strong and enduring, but after he acquired these qualities he was almost invincible.

Click to expand...

I think it is quite clear that Zweihanders are absolutely not invincible, as proven by the battles against Roman Legions, who dominated such battles with their tactics.

You had Zweihanders coming at the Romans and were spread far apart from one another so that their broad sword strokes would not slice their comrades apart, and they were coming into contact with a tightly-knit uniformed Roman force which had three to four shielded soldiers for every Zweihander. The Legions absolutely tore such advasaries apart, so I would not call them "almost invincible."

This thread is older than my grandma.

Two words: Boxer Rebellion
How did that one turn out again?

balthamael said:

.......How many soliders do you know that know ANYTHING about martial arts? Very few.

Click to expand...

I agree with the martisl arts part but most soldiers (that I know!) are capibale of weaponless combat.

Dad
In U.S. navy before the war, knew Judo.

My freinds dad
Lt. Colonel, Skilled in karate, boxing

Brother #1,
Piolit, skilled in Kung-Fu and Judo

Brother #2
Sergant, Karate, boxing, Judo, and Kung-fu
Point is after 6 years I hoped to kick bro #1's @$$.
failed.
Did 9, and couldn't lay a finger on any of the above except #2.
There freinds kick my ass, and Im pretty good at karate.
There ARE great martial artists serving our, country , theyd just rather use guns and tanks

Thought I'd stick my two-and-a-half cents (inflation, y'know ) in here.

First off, a couple of quotes from an article on unarmed versus armed combat I read years ago:

According to this guy, most unarmed martial arts were developed by conquered peoples who were forbidden to carry weapons, and who remained conquered by those who did.

"The greatest Kung Fu master in the world can't stand up to six .38 caliber slugs in the solar plexus."

Now, unarmed fighting styles can certainly be useful, especially if your opponent is armed and dismisses you as "harmless" 'cause you're not totin' hardware comparable to his. But in such a situation, you'd use your "style" -- which could be a karate chop or a straight shot to the jaw with a fistful of quarters -- to take down your foe before he brought his "superior" weapon into play.

Finally, just how many armies of unarmed martial artists have been successfully fielded in the history of warfare?