Ah, good discussion!
Boris said...
What difference should it make. Unless you are into history.
Ah, but I am into history! Heh, heh. Besides, I think what Skozeny said also applies; that, to put it in my own words, if an instructor is willing to lie to you (or at least, heavily propagandize) that may indicate a problem with the instructor or the art. And if the art is really effective, why would there be a need to fabricate a history for it. (And BTW, I'm not saying TKD isn't or can't be effective.)
Skorzeny said...
It may sound "bold" to those who have accepted the 1,000 year "ancient" art line uncritically.
It sounds bold to me and I haven't uncritically accepted the "1000 year old" myth for years!
During this period, Chinese culture, technology and political system (not to mention Chinese writing) were accepted as something akin to god's gift by Koreans
Ah, now this is starting to make more sense to me. I did know that Chinese culture heavily influenced Korean culture, and I did know about the language connection as well. In fact, I'd always heard it described as Chinese being to Asia like Latin was to Europe. Chinese was always the language of the literati.
You also mention the influence of Northen Chinese styles, especially in kicking techniques. This also makes sense to me, and in fact, I've heard that before. But doesn't that actually support the idea of, for example, TKD not being just a Korean version of Shotokan? If Korean MA in pre-colonial times was heavily influenced by Chinese MA, and heavily influenced by Japanese MA afterward, then wouldn't it seem believable that Korean MA would include all of those influences (and all of them filtered through a Korean "take" on them)?
Mind you, I'm not arguing so much here as I am trying to work through these things according to my understanding of them.
I already mentioned folk wresting (which I do NOT count as a "martial art" in the purest sense of a "military art).
Well, I usually take "martial" not to mean "military" but rather more broadly as "fighting". So I would still consider folk wrestling a "fighting art". But that's all semantics really.
we are aware of the midget barbarians' notable swordfighting skills
LOL! That rocks. Heh, heh. Although it does help to perpetuate the myth of Japanese swordplay being superior to all others.
The true emergence of empty-hand martial art was the during the Meiji period in Japan when wearing of two swords was banned.
Interesting history. But just for the record, I was referring to the emergence of civilian MA in a general sense of what I've studied in most cultures. Eg. Civilian MA in Europe didn't really hit it's stride until the Renaissance which is when it started to develop techniques that worked on the street, but not on the battlefield. Before that, all MA really were military arts. Even when used in duels and single combat the weapons were always weapons that could be (and were) used on the battlefield.
There is some evidence that TKD added some Chinese systems (mostly northern styles with lots of kicks) being practiced in Korea up to that point to their version of Shotokan.
So Chinese Arts influenced Korean combat. I'm assuming that influence was going on for "1000's of years"? Over that time unless there was constant contact and oversight between the Chinese and Koreans I find it extremely hard to believe that Korean practicioners did not develop and modify techniques. Assuming they did, by the time Japan colonized Korea I would think those Chinese arts had been pretty well Koreanized. So that would make TKD a combination of Shotokan and "Taekyon" which is one of those "ancient Korean arts" itself descended from ancient Chinese MA. Sound reasonable?
It's all musing though. I wonder if there is any archeologucal evidence of this? I wonder if there are any modern practicioners of "Taekyon" and if so, what it looks like. If it looks like a Chinese northern style, but with some significant difference in technique... Anyway, it's fun to think about.
There is one other problem I have with all this, though. What you're saying, Skorzeny, does sound a lot like the whole, "all MA come from China" idea which is patently false. Now again, it may depend on one's definition of MA, but all cultures tend to develop their own methods of fighting. Even if Chinese MA were really so influential, it would make sense that they then _influenced_ local MA. But replaced them, or filled a vacuum? That doesn't really make sense to me.
However, "typical techniques" of pre-modern martial arts were spearmanship, swordmanship, archery, shield-work, horsemanship...
And grappling! Don't forget the grappling! At least in the west, it was a crucial part of MA, even on the battlefield.
BTW, just want to add that I am a TKD guy. I have a 1st dan in ITF TKD. So I am not busting on the art. I've just always been curious about the history of it.
Regards,
Matt