Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Dec 1, 2010 11:08:59 GMT -5
Wasn't is apparent that they had technology that rivalled humanity of only a few years prior to computers? I don't believe it myself. I just like the idea that human advancement wasn't just us. There's more to "human advancement" than just technology. If I'm not mistaken the Inca's and the Mia's had advanced astrology , mathematics and chemistry just behind where it had reached in western culture at the turn of the 20th century several centuries before. Also Ancient Chinese and tribal (e.g African and American Indian)medical/ apothecary practices rival recent medicine. Studies done only a few decades ago have shown that most of the herbal, and root medicines used by these cultures actually contain small concentrations of the same compounds as modern pharmaceuticals.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Dec 1, 2010 11:17:19 GMT -5
Myth: Only Asia has real martial arts. Europeans traditions didn't know shit about unarmed fighting techniques and were basically just swinging fists like drunken idiots. Truth: all cultures had martial arts. Europe was actually a hotbed for martial arts development as it had contact with no less the three continents and even invented several martial art styles that gave birth to subsequent ones. For example the greeks had a formal style called pankration that was basically based on two principles " everything is permitted" and " learn to defend yourself from every type of attack" The style by today's analysis was visually speaking something like mixed martial arts on kryptonian steroids incorparating very complex and deadly grappling techniques as well as punches, kicks and basically learning to lash out with every portion of your body. The egyptians had formal martial arts schools and as of the reign of Ramses II soldiers in his army were required to attend them to learn the basics of unarmed, grappling and armed combat. Knights inherited the techniques of the Greeks, later Romans and also incorporated techniques from the germanic tribes that were their ancestors. The curriculum of knights required them to learn unarmed combat as well as grappling techniques and close up small weapon (daggers, knives, etc). THANK GOD, where were you when I was trying to get through the incredibly thick skull of that moron formidable on CV on this very subject. Not only could he not get that there was more to martial arts than Asia but he truly believed that every Asian martial art stemmed from Chinese Kung Fu. Yes some Thai, Korean, Japanese arts were influenced later by contact to Chinese forms but derived from. Not to mention the 100's of African, and South American forms of combat.
|
|
|
Post by Tesseract on Dec 1, 2010 14:33:45 GMT -5
Who was the best/most accomplished warrior nation in history? Depends on based on what criteria you would define best warrior as. The term warrior is hard to define and context often plays a key role in how an individual appears to later analysis. Ok, let me rephrase that a bit. Which nation valued war/soldiers the most in their cultures? I guess Sparta is up there but what are other nation that did the same or similar things. And which nation had the best track record in war/conquering, and what was the reason behind this?Superior numbers, better equipment, tactics or something else. If there is no definite answer which I guess is a high possibility can you name some examples.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 18:42:17 GMT -5
If you can pick anywhere to live, to further your education where would that place be? Cambridge, Oxford or Berlin if I could afford the university costs there, all my favorite authors are from there and their history departments are the best in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 18:45:56 GMT -5
What are your thought's on Ninjas? What they were in reality and what pop culture shows them is two entirely different things and because of thus, they are sadly VERY VERY overrated, ninjas actually have a long history of failing at their purpose, they were not warriors or even decent combatants most of the time and the largest clans were actually wiped out when a few samurai lords decided they weren't going to take their shit anymore and just went into their lands and did the whole " Kill them to the last woman and child thing". Which everyone ended up being cool with because these ninjas were assholes and everyone was tired of them. P.S: I am obviously paraphrasing here and will elaborate on the history and facts of ninjas if asked.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 18:59:13 GMT -5
Medieval plate armor is a cumbersome, impractical piece of equipment that gives you the protection, but also the agility of a tank. I know this is a myth, but I'd like to hear a professional opinion about it. Oh god where would I start, people who say this are really retarded. First of all plate technology was one of the greatest metallurgical devellopments of the time. This was specifically because plate armor allowed the trained knight (who also happened to be the most skilled warrior of his time) to shrug arrows like rain (there are verified stories of knights that walked alway with no less then 60 arrows in their bodies and yet were not actually hurt because the arrows never reached the flesh because of the layer of leather under the metal plate). Second, every suit of plate armor was designed to the measurements of a specific person and nobody else. This is precisely because comfort, mobility and practicality were paramount so the only solution was that every suit of armor was for a single person, and thus would get maximum success of their suit. Finally, a full suit actually placed less weight on portions of the body then the current modern full body armor of the U.S military (whom weights around 25-35 KG) as even the heaviest suits of armor designed for battle actually weighted in around 20 KG. Knights were capable of jumping on their saddles with little effort. Run up to archers and decapitate annoying archers (something their armor made them especially easy because their armor made them almost immune to arrows. In fact they were able to jump up from a prone position in full armor, which is why counter knight tactics required heavy use of pole arm infantry formations, knights had to be killed before they could get back on their feet, because if that happened, don't get within his reach because he will fuck your shit up. Plate armor only disappeared because firearms eventually made them outdated. It's worth nothing that the first hand held firearms could not punch through heavy plate.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 19:04:47 GMT -5
THANK GOD, where were you when I was trying to get through the incredibly thick skull of that moron formidable on CV on this very subject. Not only could he not get that there was more to martial arts than Asia but he truly believed that every Asian martial art stemmed from Chinese Kung Fu. Yes some Thai, Korean, Japanese arts were influenced later by contact to Chinese forms but derived from. Not to mention the 100's of African, and South American forms of combat. and every other culture with organized forms of warfare...
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 19:20:24 GMT -5
Ok, let me rephrase that a bit. Which nation valued war/soldiers the most in their cultures? I guess Sparta is up there but what are other nation that did the same or similar things. All empires had warrior elites, their social status however varied very much depending on the period, but they were generally well regarded. That said, the reason Spartans placed such high status to warrior is because these warriors were the landowners and citizens of the state in a nation with an entire sub-class of slaves from an adjacent population that god reduced to servitude. With that said, as to what culture placed the highest regard on their warriors. The Romans at the height of their power believed that the army was the backbone of their security and they created military systems as well as cultures that really emphasized the effectiveness of their soldiers. In this regard Knights rose from simple mounted warriors to the highest ranks in society, kings and Ducs were all knights at some point and they were also amongst the most widely educated group of their time aside from the clergy. After the 11th century it is also worth mentioning that with the Peace of God and other papal texts knights were lauded as to having a mission to do God's work (even if cynical analysis of reality bears this to critique, but I'm speaking in general theory here) the Indian Rapjuts were also notable as they were very much an elite tied to their religion and the glory of their culture. So one can rightly say they were very well regarded. I'm obviously speaking in generalities here, but this is because as a historian it is impossible for me to say that "this one culture had the most regarded warriors" so instead I opt to offer several examples and let everyone make their own judgment. And which nation had the best track record in war/conquering, and what was the reason behind this?Superior numbers, better equipment, tactics or something else. In terms of size and number of cultures confronted and defeated, the Mongols had the best track record during the reign of Ghengis Khan and his son Ogedei as it is the largest pre-modern land empire to date. However, the empire itself was seperated in several distinct Khanates after their deaths. But in terms of sheer size, success in a short span of time, you can't argue they came, they saw and they crushed almost everything they met under their boots. That said, the romans are notable in not only size but how long their hold on a very large expanse lasted. Romanization's cultural system ensure assimilation and intergration of conquered cultures that really helped them be a success (thought the downside to this method is partly responsible for their eventual downfall over time) The Persian actually for a long time held an empire that was bigger then the roman empire and even after the empire took off were the only unified empire for a long time that managed to stand against them. Most importantly the cutural and bureacratic systems they created would eventually be exported by the romans into their own culture and spread out in the regions that would be their inheritors. Medieval Europe was also, contrary to popular belief quite a success, while it wasn't a single empire (Aside for the constantly changing in size Holy Roman empire). In their span they actually revolutionized warfare, defeated cultures on no less then three continents and expanded their way of organization far beyond their original borders. Anyway these are just a few thoughts.
|
|
spoilsport
Team Buster Ledger
I'm not mean, I'm a thousand years old and I've just lost track of my moral code.
Posts: 2,020
|
Post by spoilsport on Dec 1, 2010 19:38:35 GMT -5
Confirm/deny - majority of samurai duels, once the weapon was drawn, were one-to-two second long affairs?
I'm looking at discussions on IMDB concerning the "realism" of a samurai movie and this is a point that has been drawn out for while.
|
|
|
Post by Tesseract on Dec 1, 2010 19:40:14 GMT -5
Thank you for your input, I will try to come up with more questions because this is as fun as it is educational, or I should say kick ass thread my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 1, 2010 22:10:44 GMT -5
Confirm/deny - majority of samurai duels, once the weapon was drawn, were one-to-two second long affairs? I'm looking at discussions on IMDB concerning the "realism" of a samurai movie and this is a point that has been drawn out for while. Denied, mostly, here's why: This is because it's worth noting that many duels between japanese nobles were actually not fought with katana on katana but actually daggers, which in any warrior culture with integrated grappling techniques meant a fight could last a very long time before any blood was actually drawn Furthermore, it's worth noting that armor was designed to stop swords and so a duel could last a very long time with two matched opponents. This to say that single combat/duels were highly variant upon the context. However, when two opponents did duel without armor and with sword this meant calling upon the techniques of Iaido and Bokkojustsu which meant that yes a duel could be over in a single draw if one was faster then the other. However, this is much more of an ideal then reality where it is no simple feat to win in a single stroke and actually a techniques that even masters practiced for years to have a chance to achieve.
|
|
Matezoide
Team Buster Ledger
Elephants!
Posts: 2,240
|
Post by Matezoide on Dec 2, 2010 9:12:22 GMT -5
P.S: I am obviously paraphrasing here and will elaborate on the history and facts of ninjas if asked. meh,why not? i always knew they werent anything relatively close to movies,TV or comics,but knowledge is never enough so yeah,go for it,they were basicaly spies,right?
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Dec 2, 2010 9:48:13 GMT -5
I have been curious. Are "Monks" the same in history, as they are shown in pop culture? By that, I mean are the typical bald-headed, staff carrying fighters that we know?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
spoilsport
Team Buster Ledger
I'm not mean, I'm a thousand years old and I've just lost track of my moral code.
Posts: 2,020
|
Post by spoilsport on Dec 2, 2010 11:48:12 GMT -5
Denied, mostly, here's why: This is because it's worth noting that many duels between japanese nobles were actually not fought with katana on katana but actually daggers, which in any warrior culture with integrated grappling techniques meant a fight could last a very long time before any blood was actually drawn This is something I definitely wasn't aware of. Interesting. And the rest of your answer provided insight too. I suppose I should have clarified the situation a bit, but who cares, I got more information this way haha. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Dec 2, 2010 17:16:23 GMT -5
Oh god where would I start, people who say this are really retarded. First of all plate technology was one of the greatest metallurgical devellopments of the time. This was specifically because plate armor allowed the trained knight (who also happened to be the most skilled warrior of his time) to shrug arrows like rain (there are verified stories of knights that walked alway with no less then 60 arrows in their bodies and yet were not actually hurt because the arrows never reached the flesh because of the layer of leather under the metal plate). Second, every suit of plate armor was designed to the measurements of a specific person and nobody else. This is precisely because comfort, mobility and practicality were paramount so the only solution was that every suit of armor was for a single person, and thus would get maximum success of their suit. Finally, a full suit actually placed less weight on portions of the body then the current modern full body armor of the U.S military (whom weights around 25-35 KG) as even the heaviest suits of armor designed for battle actually weighted in around 20 KG. Knights were capable of jumping on their saddles with little effort. Run up to archers and decapitate annoying archers (something their armor made them especially easy because their armor made them almost immune to arrows. In fact they were able to jump up from a prone position in full armor, which is why counter knight tactics required heavy use of pole arm infantry formations, knights had to be killed before they could get back on their feet, because if that happened, don't get within his reach because he will fuck your shit up. Plate armor only disappeared because firearms eventually made them outdated. It's worth nothing that the first hand held firearms could not punch through heavy plate. Cool. Thanks for that. I have a feeling we're gonna have fun with this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 4, 2010 19:06:29 GMT -5
meh,why not? i always knew they werent anything relatively close to movies,TV or comics,but knowledge is never enough so yeah,go for it,they were basicaly spies,right? yeah, spies, saboteurs and terrorists. Pre 10th century Japan there is no mention of ninjas and only scant few mention of spies in general. However in the Sengoku period, the Iga and Koga clans served as mercenary clans during the warring states period and carried out espionage on contract, assassination, arson and sabotage. There were also smaller groups scattered about in the same period These ninja groups were organized along a guild structure with cells acting out and selling their services to feudal warlords whom hired them to carry out covert activities. Then Oda Nobunaga, tired of dealing with their shit and them hampering his plans to unify Japan under his rule and invaded the Iga lands in 1581 and wiped them out. The survivors split up and there is mention of them until the capture of Hara Castle in 1638. Texts and records as well as events are clear that ninja were not warriors. In fact they were most of the time very incompetent fighters compared to carreer samurai as they were trained in infiltration, poisons, masquerading as peasants and entertainers etc. If a ninja had to fight it out, that meant he screwed up, as not only were they were meant to carry out specific tasks without it being obvious that it was an assassination or who was involved. After Oda wiped out the Iga and Koga, individual lords started to train their own shinoby from their vassals. But again they were never meant to be used as warriors or fighters. Their role was information gathering, discreet assassination and sabotage. Thus those picked for such training were not chosen for military genius, martial prowess or anything like that. They were picked because they were unassuming, subtle and easily put in favorable positions to act. Since they did not train in warfare and martial skills as much as soldiers or were ever placed in position/given missions that implied any real combat. They sucked at it.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 4, 2010 19:25:13 GMT -5
I have been curious. Are "Monks" the same in history, as they are shown in pop culture? By that, I mean are the typical bald-headed, staff carrying fighters that we know? No, monks in general were not the bald headed staff carrying fighters we see. Monks are religious folk who practice asceticism as a means to get spiritual advancement. This exists in many religions and despite the differences in the religion. The basics of how it is practiced are very similar. The idea is one removes one's self from worldly concerns to concentrate on the spiritual world. This entails seclusion, renouncing material possessions (hence they dress simply in robes), meditation (and yes christian monks do practice meditation as much as Buddhist monks it's just called a different name), purification, etc. In fact a buddhist monk recently wrote a book where he commented on his experiences in a benedictine monastery and he remarked that he felt surprisingly at home there because the silence and discipline of the benedictine monks was very much like his own practices. The image of stick fighting monks essentially came because of popular culture has glued the image of Shaolin Monks onto every other monastic tradition even if it makes no sense as all monastic orders frown upon violence, whatever form in may take and martial ability is never the point. Shaolin monks practiced kung fu as part of their meditative regiment and because of this they created/formalized the kung fu. Even if they were therefore formidable fighters, even they did not pursue kung fu as an end. It was a means to continuing spiritual advancement.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Dec 5, 2010 13:58:04 GMT -5
I have been curious. Are "Monks" the same in history, as they are shown in pop culture? By that, I mean are the typical bald-headed, staff carrying fighters that we know? No, monks in general were not the bald headed staff carrying fighters we see. Monks are religious folk who practice asceticism as a means to get spiritual advancement. This exists in many religions and despite the differences in the religion. The basics of how it is practiced are very similar. The idea is one removes one's self from worldly concerns to concentrate on the spiritual world. This entails seclusion, renouncing material possessions (hence they dress simply in robes), meditation (and yes christian monks do practice meditation as much as Buddhist monks it's just called a different name), purification, etc. In fact a buddhist monk recently wrote a book where he commented on his experiences in a benedictine monastery and he remarked that he felt surprisingly at home there because the silence and discipline of the benedictine monks was very much like his own practices. The image of stick fighting monks essentially came because of popular culture has glued the image of Shaolin Monks onto every other monastic tradition even if it makes no sense as all monastic orders frown upon violence, whatever form in may take and martial ability is never the point. Shaolin monks practiced kung fu as part of their meditative regiment and because of this they created/formalized the kung fu. Even if they were therefore formidable fighters, even they did not pursue kung fu as an end. It was a means to continuing spiritual advancement. Thanks man. Good explanation. Here is another one. What country was the first to use guns in battle?
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Dec 5, 2010 16:41:07 GMT -5
China 700 AD where gunpowder was invented.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Dec 6, 2010 9:04:35 GMT -5
China 700 AD where gunpowder was invented. Thanks, these were along the lines of what I was thinking while debating someone in RL. He said Gunpowder was first created in Africa.........
|
|