Swordplay in FMA?

[741]

I have been told that FMA teaches all kinds of weapons, including axe, sword, bow, blowgun, and etc; not just stick and knife.

However, everytime I see an argument about which style of swordplay is better between eastern and western, kendo/kenjutsu is always used to compare to western fencing. Usually in these arguments, when FMA is brought up, it is just dismissed as a "stick and knife" art and is rarely used to compare against western swordplay.

I believe my guru told me that I'll be learning stick, knife, and staff for now, but he didn't mention sword at all. I'm considering enrolling in a western fencing school as well to gain skills in swordplay. Yes, I know that the sticks I train with now were originally used to simulate blades a long time ago, however, there are a lot of techniques I'm learning now that simply won't work if the sticks were replaced by blades (grabbing opponent's sticks, trapping, etc) And from what I know, western fencing has a lot more emphasis on thrusting than any other eastern martial arts, so I guess I can take the best from both worlds.

How many of you guys in FMA learned swordplay in it? And if you've also done japanese or western swordplay, please give a comparison of it to FMA's swordplay.

[swan104]

I read an article ages ago that compared Eastern and Western swordplay. I have done a search on the web for you:

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

This article, and others are quite interesting if you're into learning more about Western martial arts and swordplay.

I also remember briefly speaking to a guy at Seni03 who was promoting Western historical swordplay. I'm sure he was quite serious about the art, but the impression I got was that he played too much Dungeons and Dragons when he was younger!

[krys]

QUOTE]How many of you guys in FMA learned swordplay in it?[/QUOTE]

In one of the escrima styles I study we train with bolos (machettes) whose blades have been used on coconuts (although they are still sharp), actually the main weapon is a bolo, barong... i.e. bladed weapon.
But i had to train with sticks first to get the movements and not be injured in my earlier training....


Idealy for real business you take a blade:bolo, pyra, barong, krys.... (you may also take hardwood if you don't have a sword)
In many Arnis styles you train with sticks in order to avoid injuring yourself or your partner, but the sticks simulate blades.
What you learn with sticks should also work with blades.... if you learn traditional Arnis.


The only problem now is that some arnis schools really specialize in sticks (mostly for competition reasons). As you said there are some moves that cannot be done with blades but work quite well with sticks, so they droped the blade aspect and put more emphasis on these techniques.

And from what I know, western fencing has a lot more emphasis on thrusting than any other eastern martial arts, so I guess I can take the best from both worlds.

Thrusting is very important in fmas.
The problem is that peoples get easily injured with thrusts....
That is why it is forbidden in some competitions and more emphasis is put on slashes in normal classes.....

I guess I can take the best from both worlds.

Yes of course, I used myself to spare with a former fencing champion who was doing modern arnis and learned some tricks from him.....
but be carefull not to take bad habits, fencing is also competition driven......
One of their main problem is that they keep the unarmed hand behind..... and their footwork is essentially linear....


Mabuhay anf filipino Silat at Arnis.

[TwinCobras7]

In history, FMA showed western swordplay who's their daddy. Philippines had a trult pure art on its own before spanish rule. Most people say that that's what kali is. Arnis and Eskrima have a lot of western influences in its movements. True, there are a lot of techniques geared towards stick applications, i guess because of all of the challenge matches before, they were mostly fought with sticks. If you want to see a FMA with a lot of bolo applications.....check out dequerdas. Its blocks are really simple and direct. They're supported at all times behind the blade. I'm not saying that none of the other FMA's don't have blade work. But dequerdas kinda focuses on it a little more.

[krys]

[/QUOTE]

FMA showed western swordplay who's their daddy.

This is highly questionable.....Both cultures had excellent fighters......
Europe had a long tradition of warfare...but most of the european swordplay was lost... and is not represented by contemporary fencing.
Filipinos preserved their martial arts, that is the difference....

Philippines had a trult pure art on its own before spanish rule. Most people say that that's what kali is.

I feel the "Kali" debate is coming back again.....
And of course these people claim to teach the original unaltered austronesian art.....

i guess because of all of the challenge matches before, they were mostly fought with sticks.

How do you know that? From what I understand down south it was always with blades....

Arnis and Eskrima have a lot of western influences in its movements.

This is a good thing, the locals incorporated
new techniques to their already effective martial arts, which made them even more deadly.... Filipino history is full of stories of friars-soldiers teaching swordplay to the locals in order to defend themselves against
marauding pirates. I am convinced arnisadors also adapted their fighting styles to counter the muslim warrior's martial arts.....
FMAs evolved during struggle..... and benefited from different foreign influences, that is what makes it so interesting.....


The blade art I train in is just called "to cut, to chop" in the local dialect; we just say Escrima, or Arnis, because there is no formal name for it's kind,... and it comes from a place where spaniards had very little influence....

Mabuhay ang filipino Silat at Arnis.

[ryanhall]

Nice posts, Krys.

As was stated before, Western swordmanship of old is far from accurately replicated by contemporary fencing. Much of it is lost. I suspect that the same thing is true of Japanese swordplay. I refuse to believe that the two demensional arts such as kendo that are seen today accurately represent the way that samurai fought.

Slashing v. Thrusting:
I find that, though both are important and both are effective at their time, thrusting is inherently superior to slashing. While slashes often leave superficial wounds (unless a vital area is cut), stabs or thrusts more often lead to death, as a wound is much harder to repair (especially in the past). I also find that thrusts are more difficult to defend when a longer weapon is used. Slashes are tougher when a small blade is used.

I believe that both FMAs and Western swordplay were superior to the other forms of their time because they did not allow tradition to seep in for its own sake.

[TwinCobras7]

krys
good points....it must have slipped my mind when i was typing this entry that...yes western swordplay is deadly and extremely battle tested as well. especially with their sword and daggers. i've perused through some articles about western footwork and some techniques. i dug them. but when they went against the guerilla tactics of the muslims..."historically speaking" they did get a run for their money.

and yes...the "kali"arguments are getting redundant....ridiculous even.
about the challenge matches..i actually was specifically speaking of northern filipinos my bad for not clarifying.....in which they also fought to test skill in addition to those out of honor if someone was talkin smack or something....death matches did not always end in death, it can even end in submission. so they didn't use blades unless there was a real defensive situation. how do i know? well, my family had lineage in the FMA...I heard a lot of stories about uncles, great uncles, and even my dad and they all lived in both cebu and manila.

anywho...whatevs.....i like discussing stuff on here. paycE! one!

[741]

Originally posted by ryanhall

Slashing v. Thrusting:
I find that, though both are important and both are effective at their time, thrusting is inherently superior to slashing. While slashes often leave superficial wounds (unless a vital area is cut), stabs or thrusts more often lead to death, as a wound is much harder to repair (especially in the past). I also find that thrusts are more difficult to defend when a longer weapon is used. Slashes are tougher when a small blade is used.

From what I've seen, slashes are used much more than thrusts in sabre fencing. A sabre fencing friend of mine told me that it's because thrusts are easier to defend against than slashes. I don't know if I believe him...then again, it's only fencing that he's talking about, not real duelling.

[Sun_Helmet]

swordplay

<>

Swordplay, western or eastern has techniques when the blades are grabbed for offensive and defensive techniques. It depends on the sword's attributes. Trapping has many applications, especially during a bind.

FMAs sword was well respected by the Europeans who arrived on the shores and that should be enough. There was never a time when the best swords men of both cultures ever met on the battlefield. Bythe time Spain arrived with the leadership of the Conquistadore Legaspi, tactics of warfare had already evolved such that drill formations with long weapons such as lances were used by the europeans, with the very crucial element of the firearm to support it.

The HACA site had an essay about FMAs and their history is rather flawed in the way it was propagating the myth that European swordsmen came to the islands and fought the Filipino warriors blade to blade. No Spanish account ever mentions this ever happening. There are however literally hundreds of accounts when firearms and the lance were used to fight the natives.

We should always also note that divide and conquer methods were used effectively against the Filipinos during the Conquesta. It was a methodical way of gaining ground in the islands using many tactics that worked in South America.

War was never a duel at that time, and the methods of war evident even today has much to do with many elements beyond the individual's sole fighting skills.

--Rafael--
----------
--------
------------

[NWPTrainer]

Originally posted by TwinCobras7
In history, FMA showed western swordplay who's their daddy.

Yep. That's why the Filipinos ruled Spain for over 500 years.

What an asinine statement.

Euro swordplay is not fencing, and vice versa. Fencing is not a martial art, it's a sport. There are a number of very talented European Style swordsmanship teachers around. I would suggest you look into what they offer if you want to learn some valuable skills based on Historical Euro Martial Arts.

RLTW

[Sun_Helmet]

Swordplay

We have to also realize that Spain did **NOT*** rule the Filipinos with the sword either. Religion, divide /conquer methods and the firearm were the top three tools of conquesta.

However, I wouldn't call the post asinine, even though it was equally disrespectful of western swordsmanship, because there is historical evidence during the Katipunan (or the united Philippine revolution) against Spain that the Spanish troops were defeated with the primary use of the Filipino blade. Filipinos had to fight their way with whatever dagger or bolo they could find to obtain Spanish firearms. However, that is war and not an individual's personal progress in today's martial arts. The Filipinos reliance on the blade was not the primary factor of their independence. Unity and Courage had more to do with it ... as in any war.

Prior to their arrival in the Philippines, Spain was conquered by the sword. Not by Filipino Moros, but by the Moors. It still does not discount the excellent instruction of Western swordsmen today, since most of it has nothing to do with winning a war. A lone swordsman, no matter how skilled, can hope to win a war by themselves. There are more tactics in battle than the skill of one's sword. A lone swordsman against great odds means a martyr or a lost hero.

From Spain's POV - their negative outlook towards anything Muslim in the Philippines stems from the Moors domination of Spain for over 700 plus years.
Twice the length of time the Spanish held the northern areas of the Philippines. We should also note that Spain never held the Southern islands at all, nor the island's mountain regions.

Therefore, Spanish sword tactics were logically influenced by the Moors' skills. 700 plus years of Moorish influence prior to the use of the firearms added to the evolution of their sword arts. However, it does not indicate that because the Moors won in battle that their sword arts were superior... war has more to it than the sword (note a trend here?).

We really do need to back away from statements of how one nation conquered whom to show their martial art's superiority. War has nothing to do with one on one fighting, there are so many dynamics that involve who wins an armed conflict between nations.

Western and Eastern swordsmen have been guilty of promoting their martial arts in this manner. Long useless threads of bravado and fantasy conjectures of which culture's swordsman would defeat another.

From the perspective of a one on one duel, it is already very difficult attempting to guess who the superior swordsman would be. To take it to the level of a whole country defeating another, at any point in history because they had better swordsmanship is losing the perspective of reality altogether.

I feel the closer one's martial art is to the realism of combat, the closer they are to personal effectiveness. For the individual who chooses to seek out such instruction, and learns to train realistically... the better they are on dealing respectfully with any martial art.

History does illustrate that the greatest armies lost once they closed their minds.

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali
---------
--------
---------
----------

[spiderchoke]

As far as comparison, there is none relevant.

I believe that the relative effectivness of an art depends on many determining factors.

Location, circumstance, weapon, opponents skill level, mindset of both envolved, and the many uknown or unmeasurable factors involved. Maybe the ground is wet or soft or hard or dry, etc.

Every art ultimately has weapon training in it. It would be hard to say that one was better than the other. Without citing specific circumstances.

My insturctor was once asked who would win in a fight between a kalista and a samuri. He quickly responded..."Are they fighting in a hallway or an open field?" The first of many needed questions just to try to speculate on the winner. More likely to speculate on the one with the tactical advantage.

Fencing has many benefits to training with and without the weapon. It will make you a better boxer and general fighter as well as increase your understanding of implementing a blade.

Well guys heres Spidey's 2 cents.
Thanks for reading.

"Every day spent training is one day closer to learning something."
......Spiderchoke

[Guro Dave Gould]

Hi guys,

Interesting topic, and one that is bound to be controversial in a forum style discussion. For what it is worth here is my opinion to add to the mix.

First off how can we be positive for sure that there are distinct differences between Malay and European influence when it comes to South East Asian sword play. There has been at least as much European influence on the Malay Warrior Arts as there has been Malay influence on European Combative arts. At least in regards to a sword and shield anyway.

Lets look at the facts, shall we. There has been a European presence in the Malay countries for exploration since the early 15th century (1460). And the first European colonization With the arrival and Invasion of the Portuguese into Malaysia in the early 16th century (1511). And second to that would be the arrival and invasion of the Spanish in the early 16th century (1521) in the Philippines. And the Dutch into Indonesia and Malaysia in the early 17th Century (first presence in1602). As well the same region was dominated by the British in the late 18th Century (1795). And last but not least was the domination of the French in all of what became Indo-Chine in the early 19th Century in Laos, Viet-Nam and Cambodia (1857).

As for PMA (Pilipino Warrior Arts) in specific no one knows for sure what was and was`nt included in pre-hispanic pilipino warrior arts. There is no specific literature available on the indigenous arts before the invasion of Mactan in 1521. Other than the diaries of the Spaniards who fought the indig. Pilipino Warriors there at Mactan we have no first hand knowledge of the existing warrior arts. The spanish were impressed with the native Pilipino Combat arts effect but they did`nt go into specifics in describing how they were fighting, they mention the types of weapons involved and stated that they were effective and nothing more.

One could come to the conclusion that the indigenous Pilipino Warrior arts did exist before the Spanish invasion in 1521 only because they had the knowledge to fight the spanish. For all we know the arts could have been in existance for only a few years before the invasion or for thousands of years but to what degree no-one can say for sure. There is no hard evidence supporting either scenario, we just simply don`t know.

I guess that we could go by word of mouth but then the reliability of what is spoken is questionable by its very nature. Everyone will tell you that their system is authentic and has little or no Spanish influence to it. I think that at best we have the pilipino warrior arts influenced by European sword and dagger technique along with many other local influences throughout the region at some point or another. These arts may be Pilipino at the root but the leaves on the tree are cross cultural to be sure.

Having said all of this does it matter if these arts are truely indigenous to the Philippines or not??? They are very effective and have proven their effect in combat time and time again. Often times evolution has proven that over time something effective can be made much more effective given time, technology and circumstance to improve upon itself. In the words of Juan Locoste "Kali is complete but not yet finished as it continues to better itself with the addition of each new generation of warriors".

Either way the Malay / Pilipino Warrior arts are more than just a "Stick and Knife" art. It is one dicipline that can be translated through any weapon that is placed in the human hand. The system remains the same only the emphasis of the weapon used will deviate slightly from weapon to weapon. In other words you will use a Knife differently than you will use a stick, a Bolo will be used differently that a rock, Doble Garote different than Itak at Baraw, etc... One system with many mediums by which the knowledge may be translated into combat.

I train to be effective in combat and only care for the functional means of the system in which I train. I feel that these warrior arts were brought forth for the sole means of preparing warriors for combat and nothing more. I think that they should continue to be taught in this vein and not prostituted into sporting events. In saying this I think that we all owe it to ourselves to find out about the history and culture if for no other reason than to pay homage to all of those brave warriors who lost their lives in passing down this knowledge from generation to generation. Just my opinion... Take care guys, ciao.

P.S. Very good post Sun_Helmet!!!

Guro Dave Gould.

[NWPTrainer]

Re: Swordplay

Originally posted by Sun_Helmet
We have to also realize that Spain did **NOT*** rule the Filipinos with the sword either. Religion, divide /conquer methods and the firearm were the top three tools of conquesta.

However, I wouldn't call the post asinine, even though it was equally disrespectful of western swordsmanship, because there is historical evidence during the Katipunan (or the united Philippine revolution) against Spain that the Spanish troops were defeated with the primary use of the Filipino blade. Filipinos had to fight their way with whatever dagger or bolo they could find to obtain Spanish firearms. However, that is war and not an individual's personal progress in today's martial arts. The Filipinos reliance on the blade was not the primary factor of their independence. Unity and Courage had more to do with it ... as in any war.

My calling the post assinine was about the Filipinos showing the Spanish 'who their daddy was." I stand by that. THeir is evidence that the FMA were effective against EMA. Absolutely. Magellan died in the Philipines. He was also supposedly a fairly decent swordsman. That doesn't negate the fact that the statement was ignorant. THere were far more Filipinos killed during the Spanish occupation than there were Spaniards. WHile it is true that the tactics and strategy of the Spanish were a vital aspect of that, as well as their possession of firearms, that is far from the only cause. The principles of warfare are the same, regardless of the scale of the battlefield. WHether it is two armies fighting in the deserts of the Holy Land, a commando raid on a mountain fortress, or two guys brawling in a back alley, the principles are the same. The fact that the Filipinos were not able to make this correlation indicates -to me- that there is something lacking in the theory behind their fighting arts. THe same principles that allowed one individual Filipno warrior to defeat one individual SPanish soldier should have allowed them to defeat all the Spanish. Technology is not an unbeateable weapon. The Vietneamese demonstrated it repeatedly against the French and the U.S. The Afghanis proved it against the Russians. It is a great tool, as we have demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it has to be combined with a high level of fighting skill by the individual soldiers on the ground. The Spanish accomplished that.

On the other hand....Filipino Independence had a lot more to do with the U.S. defeating the Spainsh during the SPanish-American war than anything else. I would venture to say the Teddy Roosevelt leading the Rough RIders up San Juan hill had a whole lot more to do with Filipino independence from Spain than any notions of Unity among a people that are still whacking each other over religious and political differences.

Prior to their arrival in the Philippines, Spain was conquered by the sword. Not by Filipino Moros, but by the Moors. It still does not discount the excellent instruction of Western swordsmen today, since most of it has nothing to do with winning a war. A lone swordsman, no matter how skilled, can hope to win a war by themselves. There are more tactics in battle than the skill of one's sword. A lone swordsman against great odds means a martyr or a lost hero....
Therefore, Spanish sword tactics were logically influenced by the Moors' skills. 700 plus years of Moorish influence prior to the use of the firearms added to the evolution of their sword arts. However, it does not indicate that because the Moors won in battle that their sword arts were superior... war has more to it than the sword (note a trend here?).

Valid point. I will even grant that the Muslim influence on the Southern Philipines probably included some aspect of the fighting styles. Your statement about a lone swordsman was an excellent point. That is an issue that is too seldom pointed out in discussions of the combat effectiveness of martial arts. That doesn't reduce the idiocy of the original statement.
My statement was never intended as a disparagement of the FMA. I've trained in them, and have some respect for the technology. The fact is, as I have stated elsewhere, when it comes to individual fighting, the fitness level and aggressiveness of the individual warrior has a lot more to do with victory than the techniques of the fighting art.

War has nothing to do with one on one fighting, there are so many dynamics that involve who wins an armed conflict between nations.

This is not entirely true. The individual soldier is a cog in the wheel. If the individual soldiers lack any fighting ability and spirit, the army will fail. If the individual soldier is beaten, and each of his buddies is beaten, the army will lose, regardless of how well the generals planned the battle.

I feel the closer one's martial art is to the realism of combat, the closer they are to personal effectiveness. For the individual who chooses to seek out such instruction, and learns to train realistically... the better they are on dealing respectfully with any martial art.

History does illustrate that the greatest armies lost once they closed their minds.

Agree 100%. If you train in a system that practices the skills ion as close to a real environment as possible, you're on the path to becoming an effective fighting person -- IF you can develop the mindset necessary. It's not "killer instinct." It's the attitude that "Ain;t no Mofo, or no ten Mofos, stopping me from going home to my wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/dog/cat/etc......"

Too many of the people I've seen and worked with in the martial arts community lack this attitude. Yes, that includes the FMA. Training CAN help develop it, but not completely. It's a decision that each indiviual has to make for themself.

My mind is definitly not closed towards any technology. I do think it's silly that someone would make a statement like the one made above. THat's just me though, and my opinon means nada in the real world.

RLTW

[krys]

WHether it is two armies fighting in the deserts of the Holy Land, a commando raid on a mountain fortress, or two guys brawling in a back alley, the principles are the same.

Yeah you take a sword and i'll take an uzzi we'll see who wins....

Technology is not an unbeateable weapon. The Vietneamese demonstrated it repeatedly against the French and the U.S. The Afghanis proved it against the Russians.

Only problem with your arguments are that the afghans were supported by the US and it's allies....The mujaheedins had american equipment, stinger missiles.....
The vietnamese rebellion was supported by the USSR and they had access to some good equipment... and the vietcongs were not fighting each others as was the case with most tribes in the Philippines....


First of all I am not anti american. But you said:

On the other hand....Filipino Independence had a lot more to do with the U.S. defeating the Spainsh during the SPanish-American war than anything else. I would venture to say the Teddy Roosevelt leading the Rough RIders up San Juan hill had a whole lot more to do with Filipino independence from Spain than any notions of Unity among a people that are still whacking each other over religious and political differences.

This is a very nice racist and colonial argument.....

So you think the US liberated the Philippines? Brought peace order and civilisation to the Philippines?!!!!!?
One of my friends already told me that, only pb is that he is a g. nephew of F. Marcos the late dictator....

The fact is that the US raped the young republics independance...... The spanish colonial regime already collapsed under the rebels attack.... the US bought the Philippines from the already defeated spanish colonial masters and took the country by treachery...

Concentration camps were set up through the whole country, torture, rape, summary executions and starvation of the population
were used to pacify the country...
There are estimates that 20% of the filipino population was wiped out?
Actually the american invasion did more damages in NUMBER of life lost than the Spanish conquest......
And the Philippines are STILL paying the political and economical price for it ...


Here is what happened in Samar island:
At Balangiga, on October 23, 1901, Brigadier General Jacob Smith ordered a battalion of 300 U.S. Marines, under the command of then Major Littleton W. Waller, to make Samar "a howling wilderness". "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, and the more you kill and burn the better you will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States," declared Smith. He set the minimum age limit at ten.
For the next five months, the 6th Separate Brigade killed and burned, fighting several major skirmishes against guerilla bands led by Brig. General Vicente Lukban. The U.S. soldiers also systematically burned villages in the interior, destroying food, slaughtering work animals and killing many of the civilian inhabitants. Samar's population dropped from 312,192 to 257,715. Major Waller's campaign of blood ended with the unwarranted execution of 11 Filipinos, whom he accused of treachery.

ref. : The ordeal of samar, by J. Schott,Filipinos At War by Carlos Quirino.

Teddy Roosevelt leading the Rough RIders up San Juan hill had a whole lot more to do with Filipino independence from Spain than any notions of Unity

Here is what rooswelt said:


President Roosevelt ordered Chafee to adopt "in no unmistakable terms," the "most stern measures to pacify Samar."

than any notions of Unity among a people that are still whacking each other over religious and political differences.

Spain and the US used to play different ethnic groups against each other.
At the start of the invasion the american governement signed the Bates peace treaty with the sulan of Sulu in order to Pacify the northern islands without having a second front in the south. When this was done they turned its attention to the muslims, unilateraly abrogated the Bates treaty, and massacred them (see the Bud Djao massacre).....

This is an illusion and very naive, if you understood filipino politics you would know it's all about $ and foreign interests.
If peoples are wacking each other there it is because of economical interests, if there is war in Mindanao the reason is some local and foreign groups wants war to be there....
Who do you think was behind the creation of the Abu Sayaff group?
There was a mutiny in Manila a few days ago organised by young officers... some of their point was that the military is selling weapons to rebel groups and that they organised bombings in Mindanao just before the president went to the US to ask for military aid.....