OT: Western v. Eastern martial arts

[Nikelaos]

there are definately fixed european styles, though i think alot of them tend to be meant for team work whereas asian martial arts tend to focus on the individual. Not saying warriors didn't work together but the style was perhaps just as useful 1 on 1 as in a battleground situation.

fixed martial technique was definately used by the greek phalanx and roman legionnaires, though perhaps not as excentric as eastern martial arts there was a big sense of a central style, tending to focus on keeping the guy next to you alive (phalanx for instance covered half of themselves and half of the guy to their left with their sheild, this made a wall of overlapping sheilds leaving very few weaknesses)

for more easternish 1 on 1 styles there is the schools of european dueling swords (epee, rapier...etc), modern day fencing is derived from these styles, being a keen fencer myself i know there is a solid structure, there are set ways to parry,attack and even set ways on how to move you're feet - however evolving you're own style around the basics tends to be encouraged because it makes it hard for people to guess what you'll do next and how (a big virtue in a 1 on 1 duel)

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Omniziron

Eastern martial arts seem to be tied explicitly to a single weapon or style, with a history for that style extending for hundreds and hundreds of years. I think this is why we today link the word "martial arts" to "Eastern martial arts". There is a specific style for each specific family of swords, a style for each specific polearm, and style for each specific weapon with its own name and terminology. This is something the West has never had.

I think the true reason that we only think of eastern martial arts is that most of the western martial arts have been slowly forgotten since the discovery of guns. What has survived are only the written fencing manuals but also these show hints of different styles for different weapons.