Anyway, pirates are much more famous throughout history. I mean, my guitar teacher had no idea what ninjas were. Well, he is the guy with purple wallpaper in his living room and a bizarre fetish for sheep.
You little ninja bastard's, can skuttal all around, stealthily, trying to stab us, while my crew and I drunkinly fire in circles, laughing, and knocking out you all without trying.
RAKtheUndead: If the 68-pounder was a carronade, it could make that figure of "one or two ninjas" increase by a factor of one hundred - loaded with canister shot (a bit like a shotgun), a carronade would be a pulverising weapon. In fact, any cannon loaded with canister shot would be a very effective anti-personnel weapon, and they were used in land wars (of the 1800's, particularly) to great effect.
Yes, and the time it took to load that sucker and so forth? In a standard (and pretty open) battlefield that might be useful. In most other (closed or areas with cover (where ninja(s) are more likely to be)) settings that wouldn't be useful because they would fire at one area, do pretty heavy damage to that, maybe kill a few people, and then the rest who would (obviously) be hiding elsewhere would come out and give a sound thrashing to the remaining ones who would be getting their guns out and firing off their few shots, most likely missing.
In most other (closed or areas with cover (where ninja(s) are more likely to be)) settings that wouldn't be useful because they would fire at one area, do pretty heavy damage to that, maybe kill a few people, and then the rest who would (obviously) be hiding elsewhere would come out and give a sound thrashing to the remaining ones who would be getting their guns out and firing off their few shots, most likely missing.
At this point, I think that you're forgetting the fact that even though pirates wouldn't have been as heavily trained as ninjas in hand-to-hand, they wouldn't have been useless at it, and they'd be able to put up some degree of a fight. Also, at that sort of range, it would be difficult to miss, even with a flintlock, which would have been, admittedly, notoriously inaccurate. Depending on the amount of pirates vs. ninjas (let's presume a crew of six for the carronade, and an equivalent number of ninjas), some of the pirates may have already got their guns out by the time the carronade was loaded, negating the inaccuracy which occurs in a "high noon", "clearing the gun out of its holster" type of firing.
Ninja: Were born out of a spirituality based culture. Deep sense of contentment, etc.
Pirates: Are born out of strife, and the ne'er-do-wells. There will always be pirates in any time period simply because there will never be a time where every one gets everything they need.
Advantage in a fight: Pirates. Growing up in that environment leads to dirty fighting and a desperate man is a dangerous man.
Historical Military Prowess:
Ninja: Daimyo intended to conquer the Ninja. Said culture did not really like this, and fought a guerrilla war against them. They wiped out almost to a man an army three or four times larger than themselves, because said army refused to change its tactics. Enraged, a daimyo sent an army approximately sized ten to one, and wiped them out (while taking admittedly heavy losses). The scattered remnants spread their culture throughout several provinces instead.
Pirates: Are generally wiped out after making it big. Being a famous pirate is a bad, bad thing. They do, however, make good shows of themselves and take a lot of lives in pre-emptive vengeance when it happens.
The Ninja made a bigger telling of themselves when wiped out, comparitively. Unfortunately, their original culture has been slaughtered, brutalized, and perverted into ... what you know now. The pirates have never been wiped out, and likely never will. Tie.
Fighting Style: Both are guerilla fighters. Ninja fight armed soldiers because they don't have the numbers for a 'fair' fight. What else is there to say?
Pirates poach upon (sometimes) well-guarded merchant ships. They were often outnumbered something like 30 to 1 in the bigger, more fantastic scores. They fought using fear, intimidation, and brilliant tactics. That's right, both ninjas and pirates used incredible tactics to demolish their opponents. Here's the thing: if a ninja screwed it up, they could run away. Pirates had no safety. They had to make every strike count and count hard. And they DID.
Advantage: Pirates. They had to face greater odds, and came out on top.
Culture:
Preference of Women: Ninja: Gods, I hate Japanese sexuality. "Here's some animated kiddy porn!" would be a good selling point there. Yes, this is unfairly biased, no, that doesn't make it ok.
Pirates: Arr, ye saucy wench! Pirates.
Preference of Alcohol: Ninja: Saki. Yes, they did drink it, you mind-washed pricks. Pirates: Anything they can get a hold of.
Alcoholic advantage over all: Ninja were actually discerning (even if I don't enjoy their particular tastes) Alcoholic Advantage in a fight: Pirates. They only had booze when they got a good cache. Pirates are actually less likely to be drunk than the ninjas.
Overall Happiness: Ninja: were content. Spiritually, they were fulfilled. Pirates: were often mangy, starving, and fearing for their lives. On the other hand, they got freaking wenches.
Begrudgingly, I do have to give that point to the ninja.
Individual Fighting Style: Ninjas: Trained a lot. Unfortunately, most of it was meditation. See previous point. Pirates: Entirely varied. The ninjas can't tell what's coming, so they're kind of screwed, as the pirates have guns, and much more effective swords.
Pirates get the point again.
Speaking of swords: weaponry effectiveness: Ninjas are often given katanas despite them mostly foraging those from killed soldiers. Katanas are well-forged, admittedly, but a rather poor weapon. It's good at lopping limbs off and penetrating bamboo armour, and not much else. It can stab decently, I guess. Pirates: have everything, usually rapiers or cutlasses. And guns. Rapiers are the, THE most effective sword man has ever made, because it is so hard to fight against. They're fast, they're lethal, and you're an idiot if you think the pirates (a job that involved little more than sailing and PLUNDERING) didn't practice ostensibly with them. And guns.
And guns. Pirates.
FICTIONALIZED VERSIONS:
Fighting style: Ninja: Capable of killing whole armies singlehandedly, etc. etc. Usually using 'anime physics'. Pirates: Uncatchable marauders who live the high life every night.
Well, if the pirates are uncatchable the ninjas can't kill them. Point: pirates!
Romantic Appeal: Ninjas: sorry, a 'cold, calculating, ruthless killer' reminds me too many past flames to be attractive here. Pirates: Doing what they please, with the wind at their back and the sun waning on the horizon. Expressing themselves however they like, with a strong sense of Camaraderie and the knowledge that your only limitations are self-imposed.
Piraaaaates.
I'm just going to stop here. You know the old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention"? Yeah, pirates are the invention. Pirates are NEEDED. Who needs ninjas? No one. No one but those desperately crying fanbois.
I'd tend to disagree with you on all of your points monsieur TSED, but some of them are to complex in disagreement, so I'll just go with the points I have a main problem with:
Historical Military Prowess: Ninja- as you said, they fought pretty bad odds (in an absolute as opposed to relative sense) and survived. Then they fought worse odds and failed (in a sense). They then spread their culture out which *eventually* was turned into... well, let's not go there, but they were still used up until sometime after Japan became seriously industrialized, after which, they became either much better at keeping themselves hidden or... this. Pirates- in the sense of it originally meaning a seafaring group of brigands they are (for all practical purposes) dead and gone until we venture into space, where they will be spacefaring groups of brigands. While they frequently faced horrible odds, they prefered to prey on weaker, fatter prey that wouldn't fight back as much while they bled them dry. They were much choosier about their targets as a survival tactic. But because of their ability to insipre fear for whatever reason, people were hesitant when fighting them right up until their end, so that in and of itself explains the horrible odds (temporary) survival. Winner?- Not even a tie, they both got screwed over.
Fighting style: Ninja- a ninja was highly trained in a rigidly stylized format that had (obviously) proved itself effective (otherwise they wouldn't have been so (presumably) successful). One of the main points that has been emphasized in martial arts training since (insert long-ago date here) was the training to fight against undisciplined fighters (which pirates were). Pirates- trained in essentially in brute force and in free-form (undisciplined) fighting. The actual "style" that they would use would be flawed and fairly pathetic to a well train martial artist. Fortunately for them, they were fighting people that only *appeared* to be disciplined fighters that mostly relied on firepower than actual fighting ability (yes, I'm saying that the European soldiers of the day sucked and if you don't like it then flipidy flopidy). Winner?- Ninja by a small margin. Ninja were generally fighting other disciplined fighters, but killing them with stealth, while pirates were just fighting like a wave crashing into another wave only with bullets and cannonballs.
Women-folk in the matter: Ninja- sorry, can't say I know much beyond that they must have had women because they perpetuated themselves. (By the way, that was a niche in modern Japanese culture, that is not only biased, but irrelevant to the topic at hand) Pirate- "Arr, ye saucy wench!" Winner?- Going with the unknown, possibly bad, is better than going with the known bad in my opinion. Ninja.
Alcohol: LordOmnit- get over it, it just gets you drunk Loser?- Every one of you who drinks beyond reason (i.e.- most pirates and presumably some ninja too)
Weapons: Pirates- only advantage is guns. And for the mediocrity of guns at the time it isn't that big of an advantage except when fighting a wall of enemies. Ninja- while the rapier may be the best sword that was invented (highly arguably) the ninja had such a wide variety of weapons and tools that it was staggering. They would have certainly had a weapon that could defeat a flimsy foil (or other variety of rapier). The quickness of a rapier wouldn't have been useful if it was wrapped up in the chain of a (don't count on my spelling of this) manrikigu-kusari (essentially a chain with two weights on either end that was fast, deadly, highly stealthy, and much more unpredictable (by the enemy) than a rapier). Winner?- Ninja. Still, not by much. It didn't take long for guns to become better.
I won't say ninja were infinitly better, but their purpose was stealthy killing, which (at the time), was a good way to move up in power. Nowadays it's not so good. In other words, ninja are useless nowadays. Pirates have more potential for a role in the future, but don't hold you breath pirate enthusiasts. You'll need to breathe in the next few centuries.
No, the 'ninjas are stealth assassins' is just part of the popular culture that was born of their defeat. They were monks. Like, go play Jade Empire. That dojo at the beginning was what ninjas basically were, sans magic stuff, plus way more focus on spirituality.
Chain with weighted end vs rapier? Rapier just gets swung a little and the chain slides off. Doesn't work.
Let me clarify, because I did screw up - the rapier is the best sword ever invented for unarmoured opponents. That's why it rose to popularity once fire-arms became common place, as metal armour kind of makes it useless. It was perfect for the high seas, as no one wore metal armour (and lived). Unfortunately for ninjas, they don't wear metal armour.
You do realise that every culture in history has gotten drunk off its gourd? Russians and their vodka, the English that thought that straight water was poisonous and thus only drunk mead? (They were justified, what with the dysentery and every thing). The only real variance is when and what they got drunk off, and the ninja were no better than the pirates.
Women-folk: Are you seriously saying pirate wenches aren't hot? I pity you.
Fighting style: Uh yeah. For some reason, people like to imagine that Asian martial arts are some how more effective than european ones. That's just... biased and wrong. The most effective unarmed fighting style I would say is a mix of Muay Thai (no way did the Ninja learn that) and shoot wrestling (European). Asian martial arts had some advantages over European ones - for example, they inspired a lot more discipline - but had some glaring disadvantages - for example, they were usually based around the motto of "One cut, one kill" which meant that if the first strike didn't win the fight, they've already lost. The Europeans realised early on that offense is a lot easier to do than defense, and thus defense became the biggest priority while teaching some one how to fight.
Ninja: zoom, clang, 'What!? you blocked it, HOW?!', then gutted.
I've studied a lot, and I do mean a lot, of martial arts. I started karate when I was eight years old. The euro stuff is generally better, especially weapon-wise. If you ever took 'mideival Europe' vs 'Feudal Japan' and gave them equal numbers, I'd put all my money on Europe any day. And that's even accepting that Japan would have better trained and better equipped foot soldiers. Just try to break this wall of pikemen, ye idjits.
Firstly for your lastly: Pikemen vs. swordsmen = dead pikemen. Secondly for your own secondly: Rapier vs. manrikigu-kusari = broken rapier Thirdly for yout fifthly or possibly fourthly depending upong whether or not you would count individual paragraphs as separate points or actual subject as separate: Yes, I am saying that wenches aren't hot if for no other reason than its connotations. Say lass- removing the pirate modifier- and I'll reconsider, but I don't need your pity. Continuing-on-ly: The problem I have is not with western martial arts, it's the lack thereof. I'm not going to say that savate (the only European one that comes to mind) or any other one are bad, I'm saying that they weren't as commonly taught to the people who would be out there fighting. Most of the people out there fighting in the European world were either self-taught or not taught at all. And with your "most effective" (don't go there) you are talking about a mixed-martial art. That's not a style in an of itself because it doens't have the defining charcteristics of its own (a lot of martial arts evolved from other, root styles, but they develop into their own distinct style, rather than being a mix of different styles). I will say that many Asian styles were based after a motto like that, and without good reason, but saying that most were is streatching it a little. I also find it a little hard to believe that you have studied a lot of martial arts (at least Asian ones) if you believe that there wouldn't be a back up for the first strike and that they didn't teach much defense. But I do believe that forms are a bunch of golden horse shit cakes.
LordOmnit: Firstly for your lastly: Pikemen vs. swordsmen = dead pikemen.
Only if the swordsmen break the line. Why else would they even use pikemen? They're easy to train, they stomp out cavalry easily, and swordsmen can't get close enough. You need specially developed weapons to break the pikes in order to shut them down, and a katana is not a zweihander.
Secondly for your own secondly: Rapier vs. manrikigu-kusari = broken rapier
Yeah, a chain is definately going to break steel that can avoid it with a flick of the wrist. Manrikis were totally all about breaking weapons, and not tying them up at all.
Try going for the limbs and chokes next time, plzkthx.
Thirdly for yout fifthly or possibly fourthly depending upong whether or not you would count individual paragraphs as separate points or actual subject as separate: Yes, I am saying that wenches aren't hot if for no other reason than its connotations. Say lass- removing the pirate modifier- and I'll reconsider, but I don't need your pity.
Hmm. Wiktionary says:
Noun
Singular lass
Plural lasses
lass (plural lasses)
1. (archaic, informal) A young woman or girl.
VS
Singular wench
Plural wenches
wench (plural wenches)
1. a young woman, especially a servant
Right.
Continuing-on-ly: The problem I have is not with western martial arts, it's the lack thereof. I'm not going to say that savate (the only European one that comes to mind) or any other one are bad, I'm saying that they weren't as commonly taught to the people who would be out there fighting.
Or they just weren't formally named. Granted, foot soldiers didn't get very much training, but they were still taught how to use a pike. They didn't call it 'Pike-fu', they were too busy shouting 'Hold the ****ing thing steady yah bilgerats! Thrust!'
So how about a mediocre list? I won't call it extensive, though it might be.
Greco Wrestling (heck, there are about a hundred different sorts of wrestling, including Scottish Blackhold, Glima, Cornish, Lancashire, Pankration, Schwingen, etc.) Juego del Palo. Systema (though you may consider this Asian as it's Russian, and not really a western at that. And its creator had some shaolin influences, if I remember right.) Uhlan Fighting Jogo do Pau The many, many, MANY forms of fencing and jousting which all just blur together in my head (the only one I remember distinctly was called 'German Fencing' because I found it funny that all the texts claim to be in the same style as the original master) Baton Francais Kampfringen Stav (though this is kind of controversial)
How's that for 'not very many'? I bet wiki has a huge list or something.
Most of the people out there fighting in the European world were either self-taught or not taught at all.
No. Most peasant conscripts which were meat for the grinder were that description. Most actual SOLDIERS or ARMED BRIGANDS were quite well trained. Humans are good at violence, and we prepare for it.
And with your "most effective" (don't go there) you are talking about a mixed-martial art. That's not a style in an of itself because it doens't have the defining charcteristics of its own (a lot of martial arts evolved from other, root styles, but they develop into their own distinct style, rather than being a mix of different styles). I will say that many Asian styles were based after a motto like that, and without good reason, but saying that most were is streatching it a little.
Fine, sorry. Japanese arts were. OH LOOK. WHERE DID NINJA COME FROM?
I also find it a little hard to believe that you have studied a lot of martial arts (at least Asian ones) if you believe that there wouldn't be a back up for the first strike and that they didn't teach much defense.
Probably comes from techniques I learned in karate, eh? I would have absolutely sucked in a fight if I never learned to kickbox.
The really, really, really brutal things in karate had a lot of attacks but were still the same motion. A particular favourite was tripping a guy, crippling him (snapping his Achile's tendon), then stomping on the back of his neck (that's pretty much a death sentence) in all of three steps. Plus neat little side effects like eye rakes and kicking them in the ribs while you're moving from feet to neck. But if the first hand strike was blocked, you simply couldn't do the technique.
They really did live by that. That's why those stylized anime katana duels have them standing maybe 10 feet away, then they rush by, then one falls apart. They really didn't go for a bajillion parries, they struck to kill as quickly as they could.
Tell ya what, find a UFC guy who does Asian techniques and styles, and makes it past the first round.
But I do believe that forms are a bunch of golden horse shit cakes.
Okay, if you want to get all technical about it here it is:
-----Studies have shown that most ninjas were not the trained killers as displayed in many a kung-fu movie, but instead were simple farmers. They used these weapons and skills to try and get some money, or simply defend themselves from a threat. Yes, there were some trained ninjas, but those that were masterful enough to do real damage were far and few. Their weapons also were not of karate movie quality. Most ninja stars were just flimsy sheet metal, and good swords were extremely difficult to obtain, unless that individual could craft one themselves. -----Pirates, on the other hand, were also simple men of the sea. Few were trained swordsmen, usually just the captain, as some were within rich families, though usually they were just charismatic leaders. Their advantage however is that most pirates carried up to 4 pre-loaded pistols with them, usually slung about themselves with rope or something. These giant .30-.70 caliber pistols wrought serious damage upon things they shot. -----Besides all this, "pirates" and ninjas were separated by vast expanses of water and land. If somehow oriental ninjas were to come into contact with European swashbuckling pirates, the pirates stand a better chance.
Don't cite the movie The Last Samurai for god's sake, it just a movie! Nor any of those silly cartoons, animes or whatever, they don't count realistically. This is what you get from watching too much discovery/history channel, and from ready a lot of books.
Only if the swordsmen break the line. Why else would they even use pikemen? They're easy to train, they stomp out cavalry easily, and swordsmen can't get close enough. You need specially developed weapons to break the pikes in order to shut them down, and a katana is not a zweihander.
That would be why I didn't say calvary because everyone (should) know that a big, long, sturdy, and pointy stick is not something you want to go flying into. But pikemen are not highly mobile like a swordsman would be and cannot use it as swiftly as, say, any normally-proportioned sword (despite how fast they move in SC:III only they are called a lance).
Yeah, a chain is definately going to break steel that can avoid it with a flick of the wrist. Manrikis were totally all about breaking weapons, and not tying them up at all. Try going for the limbs and chokes next time, plzkthx.
I'm sorry that I thought you were smart enough to see the obvious, but if it was beyond your comprehension, that was part sarcasm and part exaggeration. Note that the rapier WAS NOT exactly as wide or strong in the blade as most- actually, any- other sword. It's small "blade" (it wasn't always sharpened) would probably be broken if caught in the chain, but then again that's assming that they didn't do the usual thing and smashed through your forehead with one of the SOLID IRON/STEEL weights with a faster and longer distance strike than with a rapier.
Hmm. Wiktionary says: [Like I give a flying, hyperdriven poo because I said connotation, not denotation fool.] Right.
Right.
Or they just weren't formally named. Granted, foot soldiers didn't get very much training, but they were still taught how to use a pike. They didn't call it 'Pike-fu', they were too busy shouting 'Hold the ****ing thing steady yah bilgerats! Thrust!'
I'm not sure what to say here other than see my earlier statement about pikes. And if that's the case then you are arguing against yourself about the usefulness of pikes against swordsman.
So how about a mediocre list? I won't call it extensive, though it might be. [Some long list I don't feel the need to quote fully] How's that for 'not very many'? I bet wiki has a huge list or something.
Compared the the staggering number of Asian schools of martial arts? Yeah, that's pretty small even if it was 1% of a complete list.
No. Most peasant conscripts which were meat for the grinder were that description. Most actual SOLDIERS or ARMED BRIGANDS were quite well trained. Humans are good at violence, and we prepare for it.
You mean the non-majority of people were good at something? I was totally unaware. Thanks for agreeing. (If it wasn't obvious at this point, I'm going based on relative numbers and percentages as opposed to absolute numbers.) I do agree that humans are good at violence, if nothing else.
Fine, sorry. Japanese arts were. OH LOOK. WHERE DID NINJA COME FROM?
I never said that. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Probably comes from techniques I learned in karate, eh? I would have absolutely sucked in a fight if I never learned to kickbox.
I'd have never guessed that you studied anything besides text based on your words. Sorry.
The really, really, really brutal things in karate had a lot of attacks but were still the same motion. A particular favourite was tripping a guy, crippling him (snapping his Achile's tendon), then stomping on the back of his neck (that's pretty much a death sentence) in all of three steps. Plus neat little side effects like eye rakes and kicking them in the ribs while you're moving from feet to neck. But if the first hand strike was blocked, you simply couldn't do the technique.
Yes, and a block followed by a few kidney strikes and snapping of the neck is totally the same motion and pathetic. And with the other things you said... I definetly remember seeing them in my style of Karate.
They really did live by that. That's why those stylized anime katana duels have them standing maybe 10 feet away, then they rush by, then one falls apart. They really didn't go for a bajillion parries, they struck to kill as quickly as they could.
Actually you are right about the parries and the one-hit kill things, but don't forget that a lot of that was/is form-fighting and most of the fights probably involved some time of *blocking* (parrying isn't the only way to defend from an attack with your weapon), etc. before someone was dealt a deathblow as they weren't form fights.
Tell ya what, find a UFC guy who does Asian techniques and styles, and makes it past the first round.
Those guys don't fight to live or even live to live, they live to fight. I can't think of many civilizations that actually went by that lifestyle and if you try and list some off I'll probably respond with, "Bullshit," to most of them and rightfully so. (Don't forget that I'm still going by relative numbers and percentages as oppose to raw numbers and note that they are all dead at this point anyways so the point is moot.)
Only if the swordsmen break the line. Why else would they even use pikemen? They're easy to train, they stomp out cavalry easily, and swordsmen can't get close enough. You need specially developed weapons to break the pikes in order to shut them down, and a katana is not a zweihander.
That would be why I didn't say calvary because everyone (should) know that a big, long, sturdy, and pointy stick is not something you want to go flying into. But pikemen are not highly mobile like a swordsman would be and cannot use it as swiftly as, say, any normally-proportioned sword (despite how fast they move in SC:III only they are called a lance).
See afore-stressed FORMATIONS. It's a freaking wall of shields and pikes. You have a sword. How do you break the formation?
Yeah, a chain is definately going to break steel that can avoid it with a flick of the wrist. Manrikis were totally all about breaking weapons, and not tying them up at all. Try going for the limbs and chokes next time, plzkthx.
I'm sorry that I thought you were smart enough to see the obvious, but if it was beyond your comprehension, that was part sarcasm and part exaggeration. Note that the rapier WAS NOT exactly as wide or strong in the blade as most- actually, any- other sword. It's small "blade" (it wasn't always sharpened) would probably be broken if caught in the chain, but then again that's assming that they didn't do the usual thing and smashed through your forehead with one of the SOLID IRON/STEEL weights with a faster and longer distance strike than with a rapier.
The fact that rapiers were fast enough to kill unsharpened should tell you one thing.
For two, manrikis were nigh-impossible to use. There were probably maybe two dozen masters of the thing throughout all of history (no I have no idea on the real number, but we both know they were stupid rare). They're just not going to be an issue, because even those who practiced their use preferred other weapons in combat almost all the time. And even even this mythic ninja shows up and swings it all over the place... Giant lead slug to the face. The unprovoked insult was a nice touch, by the by.
Hmm. Wiktionary says: [Like I give a flying, hyperdriven poo because I said connotation, not denotation fool.] Right.
Right.
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware you went by the school of debate that says "I am always right, and if you prove me wrong, it wasn't important." I thought you debated fairly. I'll try to keep this in mind for future reference.
Or they just weren't formally named. Granted, foot soldiers didn't get very much training, but they were still taught how to use a pike. They didn't call it 'Pike-fu', they were too busy shouting 'Hold the ****ing thing steady yah bilgerats! Thrust!'
I'm not sure what to say here other than see my earlier statement about pikes. And if that's the case then you are arguing against yourself about the usefulness of pikes against swordsman.
You've still not found a way for swordsmen to break a pike formation, and appear to be barking up the tree while you're at it.
So how about a mediocre list? I won't call it extensive, though it might be. [Some long list I don't feel the need to quote fully] How's that for 'not very many'? I bet wiki has a huge list or something.
Compared the the staggering number of Asian schools of martial arts? Yeah, that's pretty small even if it was 1% of a complete list.
Oh, let's compare.
That, vs: Aikido Karate Kung Fu Judo Kendo Muay Thai Taekwondo Ninjitsu
Yes, there's a lot more. But guess what? Most of them fall under one of the aforementioned categories. Plus you are completely ignoring how most of the European martial arts were *STANDARDIZED*. They found what worked, and refined that. They didn't go off and try to base some tiny variant of Kung Fu based off the Tiger *and* Crane instead of just the Tiger and call it a whole new style.
At this point I'll just consider you willfully ignorant of European martial history and you should be glad I chose pikemen over halberdiers.
No. Most peasant conscripts which were meat for the grinder were that description. Most actual SOLDIERS or ARMED BRIGANDS were quite well trained. Humans are good at violence, and we prepare for it.
You mean the non-majority of people were good at something? I was totally unaware. Thanks for agreeing. (If it wasn't obvious at this point, I'm going based on relative numbers and percentages as opposed to absolute numbers.)
So. Pirates are the majority of a population?
Fine, sorry. Japanese arts were. OH LOOK. WHERE DID NINJA COME FROM?
I never said that. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Of course not, you typed it.
Probably comes from techniques I learned in karate, eh? I would have absolutely sucked in a fight if I never learned to kickbox.
I'd have never guessed that you studied anything besides text based on your words. Sorry.
And from your zealous defense of the pajama-clad clan, I'd assume the only thing you've studied in-depth is Naruto.
If you want to turn this into a flame war, you're well on your way.
The really, really, really brutal things in karate had a lot of attacks but were still the same motion. A particular favourite was tripping a guy, crippling him (snapping his Achile's tendon), then stomping on the back of his neck (that's pretty much a death sentence) in all of three steps. Plus neat little side effects like eye rakes and kicking them in the ribs while you're moving from feet to neck. But if the first hand strike was blocked, you simply couldn't do the technique.
Yes, and a block followed by a few kidney strikes and snapping of the neck is totally the same motion and pathetic. And with the other things you said... I definetly remember seeing them in my style of Karate.
Well, considering how they just blocked a rib shot which was supposed to cause their arms to withdraw, giving you the opportunity to get to their side / back, and meaning they now have a clear sucker punch to your head if you try to follow through in any way, yeah I'd assume that it's not really a possibility. Since I have no idea what techniques you're talking about and vice versa, we really shouldn't argue about it here.
They really did live by that. That's why those stylized anime katana duels have them standing maybe 10 feet away, then they rush by, then one falls apart. They really didn't go for a bajillion parries, they struck to kill as quickly as they could.
Actually you are right about the parries and the one-hit kill things, but don't forget that a lot of that was/is form-fighting and most of the fights probably involved some time of *blocking* (parrying isn't the only way to defend from an attack with your weapon), etc. before someone was dealt a deathblow as they weren't form fights.
"A block is a wasted opportunity." You don't block things in karate, you use them as openings. That doesn't necessarily mean you take the hit, but if you just block to keep from being hit you're doing it wrong. In karate.
Tell ya what, find a UFC guy who does Asian techniques and styles, and makes it past the first round.
Those guys don't fight to live or even live to live, they live to fight. I can't think of many civilizations that actually went by that lifestyle and if you try and list some off I'll probably respond with, "Bullshit," to most of them and rightfully so. (Don't forget that I'm still going by relative numbers and percentages as oppose to raw numbers and note that they are all dead at this point anyways so the point is moot.)
Ok, so I'm tempted to just spite you at this point. I think I will. Roman gladiators. Greek wrestlers at the Olympics. I remember the Aztecs or Mayans (or both?) doing something similar, but all I can think of right now is that ball-game-or-death thing so I'm probably wrong. The key difference is back then, if they wanted melee combat, they just had to sign up and they got all they wanted. Nowadays, there's no invading Mongols or threat of invasion from the Norsemen or etc.
Well, at least you're not a complete idiot. :)
Thanks. Idiot.
Try to be nice to a guy...
Fine, I take that back. One word for you, good sir: Bunkai.
NEITHER VIKINGS CONQUER ALL!