Hollywood Has Lied Again! Western Vs Eastern Martial Arts

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

Honestly, I grew up in Japan, and the term essentially wasn't heard - though whether that was out of apathy or because it's a taboo, I cannot say.

That said, it's undoubtedly a racial slur in the West.

EDIT: Is this worth taking to another thread?

[Siromizu]

Honestly, I grew up in Japan, and the term essentially wasn't heard - though whether that was out of apathy or because it's a taboo, I cannot say.

That said, it's undoubtedly a racial slur in the West.

But apparently it only offends diaspora and hypersensitive P.C.-enthusiasts.

EDIT: Is this worth taking to another thread?

Mayhaps.

[Cannot think of a name]

I think if the internet ever got a hold of a time machine they'd just use it grab ancient warriors and make them fight in giant mayonnaise jar like captured bugs to settle internet debates like "knight vs samurai" and "ninja vs pirate."

Maybe the time machine will be absconded by some of the more reality divorced members of the internets and they'll waste all the jumps looking for Pickard and Kirk...

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

Maybe the time machine will be absconded by some of the more reality divorced members of the internets and they'll waste all the jumps looking for Pickard and Kirk...

Think bigger.

Captain Benjamin Sisko vs. a T. rex with lightsabers for arms

[Ravea]

And an unarmed, unarmoured man is going to get his ass beat in a melee with a knight no matter what mystical ninja skillz he has.

Not necessarily. Unbalance an armored knight and you can make relatively short work of him-that is, if you can get him down. There are several martial styles of combat designed to to just that.

Hilariously, the English didn't even have to go through the trouble of getting involved in Melee during the battle of Agincourt. The terribly muddy conditions literally sucked unbalanced and fallen knights into the ground, making it impossible to get up. The entire french army either drowned in their suits of armor, suffocated under other bodies, or had their throats slit by longbowmen.

[Ravea]

perhaps if a special mission called for extreme stealth

Even then, it would have been dark green (for better camouflage) or dark red (to hide bloodstains) rather than black.

Good point. Pure black stands out on a dark night.

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Jap" as an abbreviation for "Japanese" was in colloquial use in London around 1880.

Jap is only a racial slur in North America due to post-war guilt and propaganda taking it as its monosyllabic nature made for catchy slogans. That has since been taken up as being on the level of "nigger" by the Japanese-American community simply because of the butthurt caused by the camps. Regarding it as a slur when it was quite obviously utilised as a abbreviation is only cheapening the struggles of legitimate complaints against slurs. I suppose the Japanese electronic industry is rascism for making the JAP region zone.

I think we're now dealing with two separate issues. I don't think people are claiming that it was always derogatory, but rather that it is now considered pejorative simply because it falls into the same category as "Jerry" and "Kraut".

"Nip" is an incredibly insensitive term, yet it was derived the same way as "Jap" - a shortening of "Nippon"(-ese?)

Regardless of whether or not this term is historically pejorative, it has pretty clear racial connotations today in English-speaking countries. Ironically, according to Wikipedia the term "Jap" is considered acceptable in the English-speaking former colonies, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. I wonder whether these colonies' less-than-stellar experiences under Japanese occupation have anything to do with "Jap" being acceptable there, and nowhere else.

[Sarzonia]

Jap is only a racial slur in North America due to post-war guilt and propaganda taking it as its monosyllabic nature made for catchy slogans.

Regardless of the etymology of the word, the fact remains it is a racial slur. Might be a good idea to think twice before you use it regardless of your opinions of it.

[Aggicificicerous]

Have you ever tried to fire a longbow while mounted on a horse?

They have. For over a thousand years.

Yabusame remains an essential part of Japan's cultural heritage, and it's a common sight at decent-sized Shinto shrines if you know when and where to look.

Interesting. That bow doesn't look as big or thick as an English longbow, but I wouldn't mind seeing if it can penetrate a knight's armour.

[SaintB]

id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.

Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.

Too big to image.

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

Interesting. That bow doesn't look as big or thick as an English longbow, but I wouldn't mind seeing if it can penetrate a knight's armour.

I wouldn't know; my school didn't offer Japanese archery as a club, and I think my sister's limited it to the older students only. It's beautiful to watch, however.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.

Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.

Too big to image.

That is the heart of the misconception. Weapons that weren't well balanced were worthless to any serious fighter, so weaponsmiths balanced them perfectly to improve their effectiveness. Counterweights in the hilt made it much easier to use than one would think.

[SaintB]

id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.

Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.

Too big to image.

That is the heart of the misconception. Weapons that weren't well balanced were worthless to any serious fighter, so weaponsmiths balanced them perfectly to improve their effectiveness. Counterweights in the hilt made it much easier to use than one would think.

This I know, I was just providing an actual example. Some weapons you wanted to be less than perfectly balanced, for instance you want a hammer to have more weight to the top.

[Norstal]

Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_(2006_film)

Yeah except this is made in Hong Kong.

I thought someone would link the wikipedia article on the movie by now

[Ancient and Holy Terra]

Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_(2006_film)

Yeah except this is made in Hong Kong.

I thought someone would link the wikipedia article on the movie by now

That would have made too much sense.

Your link is slightly broken, btw.

[Orcoa]

I think we should not a have a debate on which styles are better, both are equally good for their own reasons.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.

Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.

Too big to image.

That is the heart of the misconception. Weapons that weren't well balanced were worthless to any serious fighter, so weaponsmiths balanced them perfectly to improve their effectiveness. Counterweights in the hilt made it much easier to use than one would think.

This I know, I was just providing an actual example. Some weapons you wanted to be less than perfectly balanced, for instance you want a hammer to have more weight to the top.

True, but even then it is well balanced to provide it's desired effect. Swords are balanced to be easier to swing for long periods of time, hammers to provide the most centripetal force to the head for a bone shattering impact. Spears are balanced to be held for long periods of time in a relatively stationary position.

[Bears Armed]

I think we're now dealing with two separate issues. I don't think people are claiming that it was always derogatory, but rather that it is now considered pejorative simply because it falls into the same category as "Jerry" and "Kraut".

What about "Brit", which seems to be fairly common usage in the USA but that I certainly don't hear used by people from our side of the pond and would personally consider to be an objectionable diminuitive of "Briton"?

[Arthropoda Ingens]

I guess the suit of Japanese maille and plate that I got to wear at a museum in Kyoto didn't exist.

I think the point is that compared to contemporary European armour, Japanese armour was... Unimpressive. Hence why, as soon as it became possible, the Japanese staretd to import European full plate (Well, those who could afford it. Luxury item). Some additions to make it stylistically fit... Bam. Basically untouchable to Japanese weaponry, unliek the poorer sods who couldn't afford transcontinental imports.

If the Katana was so useless, how did they absolutely crush the Mongols that managed to land on their shores?

Being beaten to shit by a better armed, better disciplined opponent despite actually enjoying a numerical advantage, not to mention fighting on one's hometurf, and being saved solely by virtue of bad weather fucking up one's invader twice isn't 'Crushing' by any stretch of the imagination, I'm afraid.

You'll also find that japanese defence expenditures went up dramatically after the invasions, because japan proceeded to fortify its coast - these expenditures proved to be a key reason for the collapse of the then-ruling regime.

And why did they fortify their coast, instead of relying on their awesomely superior, mobile samurai forces?

Because these forces had been near helpless against the mongols when fighting an open battle.

Of course, pretty much everyone was helpless when fighting the mongols in open battle (Though, by the time Japan got hit, the Mongols were considerably less impressive than they'd used to be). But, yeah...

You have a longbow. The other person does not.

I hope more obviousness is not needed

You'd be surprised. Even the (Superior) European longbow formations were perfectly crushable by lance-armed cavalry formations - as long as terrain and weather didn't slow them down to a crawl.

The likes of Crecy & Agincourt were exceptions, not the rule.

[Risottia]

About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.

I also think that the knight has some advantage over the samurai of the same period.
Expecially about the sword. The European swords are far more versatile in combat.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.

I also think that the knight has some advantage over the samurai of the same period.
Expecially about the sword. The European swords are far more versatile in combat.

The main difference comes from individual skill. There's a much lower margin of error in a duel between two Samurai than in a battle involving Knights. Europeans had more equipment than the average Samurai, and the Samurai's average level of skill in personal combat doesn't create a meaningful difference.

[Risottia]

About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.

I also think that the knight has some advantage over the samurai of the same period.
Expecially about the sword. The European swords are far more versatile in combat.

The main difference comes from individual skill.

As usual. That's why I said "some advantage".

There's a much lower margin of error in a duel between two Samurai than in a battle involving Knights.

I don't think I understood you point entirely there.

[Aelosia]

What I am sure is that in a pitched battle, at least the first, the knights would massacre a group of samurais. Shock cavalry tactics.

[Rambhutan]

Not quite sure why a thread about Fearless has turned into a discussion about knights fighting samurais. Fearless is based on the story of Huo Yuanjia who founded the Chin Woo Association to promote Chinese martial arts - his life is also the basis for Bruce Lee's Fists of Fury. Huo Yuanjia answered a challenge issued by a Russian wrestler who insulted the Chinese. The wrestler apologised when Huo Yuanjila accepted the challenge. Huo also accepted the challenge from a boxer, but again the boxer left town without the fight taking place.

In other words the fights never actally took place, the story is more about tension between China and Japan than about whether oriental martial arts are better than occidental ones.

That said why would anybody expect that level of accuracy in a film - a martial arts film where the fights don't happen, who would pay to see that?

Deadliest Warrior is a piece of nonsense to put it politely. I loathe it.

Martial arts develop within a context and to compare ones from different parts of the world at different times is ridicuculous. There is no intrinsic reason that would make eastern or western martial arts better than the other. If you look at old Europen martial arts books like the Codex Wallerstein or the Fechtbuchs (apologies to Germans if that isn't the plural) of Talhoffer or even the ancient Egyptian wall paintings at Beni Hasan you will see exactly the same kinds of holds and throws that you can learn in a jiu-jitsu class today.

[Ermarian]

Hollywood Has Lied Again

Newsflash of the Century: Movies are Unrealistic.