Okay. Obviously, there are many styles and it's more complex than this; I'm talking about overall trends here, not everything is this way. Also, the timeline below is somewhat arguable.
I think that practical sword and other weapon styles developed independently in various countries, and were not necessarily connected much to the styles I write of below. But I think the stylistic issues may be relevant anyway.
A brief history of one timeline for the evolution of one martial art, dates elided due to laziness:
India: Kalaripayat evolves in south India. The barehanded portion is complex, uses "animal forms," feints, and looks to me a lot like some types of kung fu. The weapons portion uses a short staff, a long staff, and some very exotic weapons which I am told were more for training than real fighting, like the urumi (flexible sword) and spear.
Aesthetic: None of this is of the "one blow, one kill" school, but with the idea that many moves are used. Very athletic, very pretty, requires great flexibility.
The monk Bodhidharma, aka Dharma or Daruma, notices the Chinese monks are soft and lazy. He brings this style to...
China: Here it evolves into the MANY styles collectively known as kung fu. Also not a "one blow, one kill" style. Still a use of animal forms, still the idea is that you will use some moves to confuse or distract, others to weaken, and other to actually strike a wounding or killing blow. Note use of unusal types of swords, spears, sectional staffs, and other less than practical weapons.
Aesthetic: Similar to kalaripayat. Many blows, variation in posture, ie, crouching then leaping.
This style travels to...
Okinawa: Here it transforms into Okinawan-style karate. More unusual weapons are added. The long staff (bo) and short staff (jo) are still there; the sword and spear are dropped, and the tonfa, oar, sai, etc are added.
Aesthetic: More linear, though still softer and more circular than Japanese karate, generally. Less variation in posture.
An Okinawan teacher takes this to...
Japan: Here it becomes Shotokan karate, plus other styles. Weapons are generally dropped or de-emphasized.
Aesthetic: Linear-- this is not literally that the enemy is at the front and you attack straight-on, but it's going in that direction. One blow, one kill is the ideal. Not so fancy, way fewer separate techniques, little variation in posture, not very pretty. Forms not named after animals.
So basically, Japanese karate is similar to the Japanese swordfghting aesthetic you see in samurai movies, that Miyamoto Musashi writes about, and that Jin uses in Samurai Champloo: hard, linear, straightforward, fewer techniques, short fights, geared toward fighting one person at a time. "One blow, one kill" and "one encounter, one chance" are key concepts.
My guess is that Chinese swordfighting might be more like kung fu: hard-soft, more circular, many moves used to do different things, maybe geared toward lots of enemies. The styles of kung fu are not typically "one encounter, one chance;" there will be many blows exchanged in order to come to a conclusion.
That sounds similar to what the drama said about respective sword styles, right?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A very simplified history of martial arts
Tue, Jan. 8th, 2008 10:21 pm (UTC)I think that practical sword and other weapon styles developed independently in various countries, and were not necessarily connected much to the styles I write of below. But I think the stylistic issues may be relevant anyway.
A brief history of one timeline for the evolution of one martial art, dates elided due to laziness:
India: Kalaripayat evolves in south India. The barehanded portion is complex, uses "animal forms," feints, and looks to me a lot like some types of kung fu. The weapons portion uses a short staff, a long staff, and some very exotic weapons which I am told were more for training than real fighting, like the urumi (flexible sword) and spear.
Aesthetic: None of this is of the "one blow, one kill" school, but with the idea that many moves are used. Very athletic, very pretty, requires great flexibility.
The monk Bodhidharma, aka Dharma or Daruma, notices the Chinese monks are soft and lazy. He brings this style to...
China: Here it evolves into the MANY styles collectively known as kung fu. Also not a "one blow, one kill" style. Still a use of animal forms, still the idea is that you will use some moves to confuse or distract, others to weaken, and other to actually strike a wounding or killing blow. Note use of unusal types of swords, spears, sectional staffs, and other less than practical weapons.
Aesthetic: Similar to kalaripayat. Many blows, variation in posture, ie, crouching then leaping.
This style travels to...
Okinawa: Here it transforms into Okinawan-style karate. More unusual weapons are added. The long staff (bo) and short staff (jo) are still there; the sword and spear are dropped, and the tonfa, oar, sai, etc are added.
Aesthetic: More linear, though still softer and more circular than Japanese karate, generally. Less variation in posture.
An Okinawan teacher takes this to...
Japan: Here it becomes Shotokan karate, plus other styles. Weapons are generally dropped or de-emphasized.
Aesthetic: Linear-- this is not literally that the enemy is at the front and you attack straight-on, but it's going in that direction. One blow, one kill is the ideal. Not so fancy, way fewer separate techniques, little variation in posture, not very pretty. Forms not named after animals.
So basically, Japanese karate is similar to the Japanese swordfghting aesthetic you see in samurai movies, that Miyamoto Musashi writes about, and that Jin uses in Samurai Champloo: hard, linear, straightforward, fewer techniques, short fights, geared toward fighting one person at a time. "One blow, one kill" and "one encounter, one chance" are key concepts.
My guess is that Chinese swordfighting might be more like kung fu: hard-soft, more circular, many moves used to do different things, maybe geared toward lots of enemies. The styles of kung fu are not typically "one encounter, one chance;" there will be many blows exchanged in order to come to a conclusion.
That sounds similar to what the drama said about respective sword styles, right?
(Edited to erase factual error, sorry.)