Paladin Martial Art?

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

It's already been said, but what you want your paladin martial arts to look like, depends on what you envisage your paladins doing. Heavily-armoured guys fighting on foot with greatswords, are going to have different requirements than guys who fight mostly from horseback. In contrast, I've been playing a Paladin martial artist (albeit in D&D) the last couple of years. His martial art is based on high mobility - move fast, hit 'em hard and then move back out of range before they can respond. Jump over the minion's heads to whack the bad guy at the back. Dodge into their lines, pull 'em off balance and knock 'em down, trick 'em into hitting each other ... It is, to borrow a phrase, super-effective, but it's not exactly a style suited to someone in full harness!

 

Any definition of "paladin martial art" really has to start with a definition of Paladin.

 

If you want something that mimics European medieval fighting techniques, we have precisely zero evidence for anything resembling martial arts: I'd just buy plenty of levels in HTH combat and combat riding for your horse. It doesn't help those with martial arts envy, but 20 points spent wisely on CSLs instead of maneuvers, produces a highly effective, if not very flashy, combatant.

 

cheers, Mark

[bluesguy]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

but 20 points spent wisely on CSLs instead of maneuvers' date=' produces a highly effective, if not very flashy, combatant.[/quote']

 

And if I am playing a 'medieval knight' type character (strong man in armor) then I am not interested in flashy combat style - I want a character who gets into a fight, dish out lots of damage and soak up lots of damage.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

If you want something that mimics European medieval fighting techniques, we have precisely zero evidence for anything resembling martial arts:

 

Based on what I've seen at sites like this one, that statement is either wrong or built on an excessively narrow definition of martial arts.

 

Wow, according to Dictionary.com, martial arts are both Oriental and empty-hand by definition. I have to call BS on that. Merriam-Webster defines it as "any of several arts of combat and self defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport" which, IMO, is also wrong because by that definition anything not widely practiced as a sport is not a martial art.

 

Wikipedia, on the other hand, defines "martial arts" as "codified systems and traditions of combat practices" which would seem to apply to medieval Europe . . . in fact, the article goes on to observe that "The term martial art has become heavily associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, but was originally used in regard to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. An English fencing manual of 1639 used the term in reference specifically to the "Science and Art" of swordplay."

 

So, I'd say that's a bit more than "zero evidence" for medieval European martial arts.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

It doesn't help those with martial arts envy, but 20 points spent wisely on CSLs instead of maneuvers, produces a highly effective, if not very flashy, combatant.

 

And if I am playing a 'medieval knight' type character (strong man in armor) then I am not interested in flashy combat style - I want a character who gets into a fight, dish out lots of damage and soak up lots of damage.

 

You want effective but not flashy? You want to do damage without taking it? "Martial Arts" doesn't have to mean posing in the crane stance between roundhouse kicks and flying leap kicks. An armored paladin would be well served, for instance, by taking Martial Strike, Offensive Strike, Defensive Strike, and Martial Block with shield and sword elements, and wouldn't bear any resemblance to Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee in a fight.

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Based on what I've seen at sites like this one' date=' that statement is either wrong or built on an excessively narrow definition of martial arts.[/quote']

 

Not really: I think you could define martial arts as any systematic system of combat training.

 

But we have not the faintest evidence that there was any systematic system of combat training in medieval Europe (Edit: apart from the military orders. They did do some combat training, but unfortunately left us no records of it until after the renaissance). No schools, no manuals, no references to great teachers .... nuthin'. We do know however the names of many great and respected swordsmen. We also know that none of them wrote any books (about fighting, anyway), none of them took pupils, none of them established schools, none of them did, in fact, anything to pass on their hard-won knowledge.

 

Wikipedia, on the other hand, defines "martial arts" as "codified systems and traditions of combat practices" which would seem to apply to medieval Europe . . . in fact, the article goes on to observe that "The term martial art has become heavily associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, but was originally used in regard to the combat systems of Europe as early as the 1550s. An English fencing manual of 1639 used the term in reference specifically to the "Science and Art" of swordplay."

 

So, I'd say that's a bit more than "zero evidence" for medieval European martial arts.

 

Ahem: I'd like to point out that your fencing manual of 1639 dates from about two centuries after the end of the middle ages. It was written in a period when armoured knights were a relic of the past, European colonial settlements were springing up on the other side of the Atlantic like mushrooms and battlefields were dominated by cannon, and masses of unarmoured or lightly armoured soldiers with matchlocks and pikes, backed up by lightly armoured cavalry. The British army was already establishing its regimental system. We're well into the early modern period by that stage.

 

Here's some soldiers from the late 1500s: is there anything even faintly medieval about them?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44025[/ATTACH]

 

Now there are actually older manuals than the one you cite. The various fechtbuch of the renaissance - and the texts surrounding them, show pretty conclusively, to my mind, that in the post-medieval period, martial arts based around the sword began to develop in Europe. The writers of those books also made plain that such things had never been done before! Yet more evidence that as far as we know medieval Europe had no tradition of martial arts (at least as we understand the term).You'll notice that the site you linked is the Association for Renaissance martial arts - the renaissance being the period after the medieval. It's more than just hair-splitting: by that time, the social power of the landed aristocracy - meaning knights and nobles - had been waning and in places was being eclipsed by merchants and traders. The knight had lost his supremacy on the battlefield to the gun, and the old feudal armies were being replaced - at least in France, the Germanies and Italy - by semi-professional or wholly professional mercenary companies armed with pikes and arquebuses. As far as we can work out, the fechtbuch were not written for - or by - knights, but by the new emerging class of commoner warriors - probably originating with the mercenary companies.

 

This doesn't mean that medieval knights couldn't fight! Far from it: there were plenty of hard men back in those days, and the best knightly commanders were consummate professionals. But as far as we can tell from their histories (and we have a lot of them), the training they got was entirely ad hoc. Via a family weapons master, if they were lucky, or on the battlefield if not. If the weapons master was any good, they were even more lucky, but either way there was - apparently - no codification, no systems, no tradition (beyond bravery and doing the right thing) - none of the things which your own definition points to. No knight went off to a sword school to learn combat ... there were no such things. He didn't study traditional sword forms ... because there were no such things! He didn't seek out a master for sword training - such an idea would have been entirely foreign to the knights of the time. The closest we come to training in that era was the melee and the tournament ... but you could only enter those once you were considered fully trained!

 

cheers, Mark

[Ragitsu]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Unarmed martial arts.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Well, if we don't have records of it, we don't have records of it; however, I find it VERY hard to believe that professional fighting men, over a period of hundreds of years, could COMPLETELY fail in noticing what works and what doesn't and telling someone else about it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Well' date=' if we don't have records of it, we don't have records of it; however, I find it VERY hard to believe that professional fighting men, over a period of hundreds of years, could COMPLETELY fail in noticing what works and what doesn't and telling someone else about it.[/quote']

 

That's because you're thinking like a modern 21st century man - the product of centuries of doing exactly that. But medieval Europeans had a different mindset to us: they did a lot of things that seem odd to us today. A lot of training (not just in the military) was done on the principle of "learning by doing". The whole idea of "book learning" was something for the monks. OK; I exaggerate a bit, but there's a core of truth there. If you look at the books that people were reading and writing through much of the medieval period, they were overwhelmingly of two kinds. 1. Religious books. 2. Copies of books written generations and sometimes centuries before. The whole concept of writing stuff down and training the next generation (which seems so obvious to us today) simply wasn't something that they did very much.

 

Even your terminology betrays the difference in viewpoint. You speak of "professional fighting men". But through most of the medieval period there were damn few "professional fighting men". There were almost no standing armies. For most warriors, fighting was a part time job: even for knights. In times of war, yes, a knight or a member of the retinue who survived could get more experience than you could shake any number of pointy sticks at. There were always mercenaries, who accumulated plenty of experience and were by and large very competent warriors. I'm certain in either case, they would have shared what they knew with those who joined their company. But there was no pension plan back in those days: the goal of any and every mercenary was to make enough cash to become a landlord. They didn't open schools and teach everything that they'd learned. They didn't write it down to pass that knowledge on, either. The best that might happen - in terms of transmission of knowledge - that one of them might end up as a weapons master to some lord, but that's a menial job: it's not something most fighting men would aspire to.

 

A knight - even a knight who had spent most of his adult life at war - didn't view himself as a professional fighting man. He saw himself as a gentleman. Fighting when required was part and parcel of being a gentleman. Squires were expected to learn the business of fighting as they grew up under the care of a knight's household, but what they learned depended entirely on that household. It's not like there was a regular training program set up. If your master felt like sparring with you and set up a training regimen, he would. If he didn't ... he wouldn't. There are plenty of historical examples of knights who appeared a bit vague on which end of the sword went into the enemy - presumably because they had spent their time doing other things than training. That didn't mean they wouldn't fight: the tradition and culture of the time meant that they'd armour up and march to battle anyway - they just wouldn't be very good when they got there.

 

That just seems to be how it was.

 

cheers, Mark

[bluesguy]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

You want effective but not flashy? You want to do damage without taking it?

 

Actually I would expect a knight to take damage and keep on coming back. As opposed to a 'light fighter' - one good hit and they are down.

 

"Martial Arts" doesn't have to mean posing in the crane stance between roundhouse kicks and flying leap kicks. An armored paladin would be well served' date=' for instance, by taking Martial Strike, Offensive Strike, Defensive Strike, and Martial Block with shield and sword elements, and wouldn't bear any resemblance to Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee in a fight.[/quote']

 

Hmmm. I would think 10 points in CSL would be helpful as well (since 10pts of martial arts skills need to be bought to get the skills you describe).

 

Also if the combat takes place on horseback I would definitely buy all the skills necessary to be a terror on horseback.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Generally I have to agree with MarkDoc RE: "Medieval Martial Arts", although I might argue semantics... some of the fighting manuals I've seen date to the mid 1400's, which is debatable as to being late Medieval or early Renaissance, and having systematic schools to teach these techniques argues that they must have seen some period of development in practical use in order to develop into a system that could be recorded and taught.

 

There is a valid argument/contention that many of the pre-dark ages cultures appear to have had warrior mystery cults, but if they did have Martial Arts type systemic training it was a word of mouth/cult secret lore kind of deal, and a LOT of that sort of knowledge has been lost to time by the ravages of war and plague. The Black Death eliminated a LOT of European oral tradition.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Unarmed martial arts.

 

What about them?

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Generally I have to agree with MarkDoc RE: "Medieval Martial Arts"' date=' although I might argue semantics... some of the fighting manuals I've seen date to the mid 1400's, which is debatable as to being late Medieval or early Renaissance, and having systematic schools to teach these techniques argues that they must have seen some period of development in practical use in order to develop into a system that could be recorded and taught.[/quote']

 

Yeah, and to be 100% honest, it does look like the very earliest description of fighting techniques come from the end of the medieval period. The earliest source we know of (Codex 3227a) refer to Mester Lichtenauer, a swordmaster from the late 14th or early 15th century, which could be classed as medieval. They also all make a point of the fact that he was the originator of their art: the first fechtbuch we know of being written around the beginning of the 1400's (at which point Mester Lichtenauer was apparently still alive), followed by a couple more during the later 1400's and then a veritable explosion of schools and styles in the 1500's. That's consistent not with the survival of a few books from the rich ancient traditions of medieval swordplay, but of one guy starting a new trend (A book of training in swordfighting! Wow!) that swiftly became taken up through the next century and a half.

 

And as I'd commented above, his name makes it clear that Mester Lichtenauer was not a knight - nor does the book address military combat very much: the chapter on swordfighting is all about duelling without armour, suggesting it was written for the emerging wealthy non-knightly class (despite rhetorical flourishes in the text addressed to "young knights"). It's not even clear if it was intended as real instruction for fighting: it's what's called a commonplace book. A lot of it is about special swordfighting techniques (the most important of which, repeated again and again is "Hit them first": good advice for fighting unarmoured with a broadsword ) - along with chapters on alchemy, magical formulas, conjuring tricks, chemical recipes for fireworks, paints, recipes, instructions for dentistry, calendar calculations, ironworking, etc.

 

It's still an immensely valuable addition to our knowledge on how 15th century people viewed swordfighting, but it's over-doing it a bit to try and portray it as an instruction manual for martial training. It's worth noting that sites like ARMA, which are interested in the swordfighting aspects, typically reproduce only the chapters on sword, dagger and staff fighting and don't even mention the other 60% of the book. Probably the modern reader would find the sections on paint and make up, and how to make fake ivory a bit out of place in what is supposed to be a martial manual!

 

There is a valid argument/contention that many of the pre-dark ages cultures appear to have had warrior mystery cults' date=' but if they did have Martial Arts type systemic training it was a word of mouth/cult secret lore kind of deal, and a LOT of that sort of knowledge has been lost to time by the ravages of war and plague. The Black Death eliminated a LOT of European oral tradition.[/quote']

 

I think this is mostly wishful thinking: there is, as you note, no evidence for this at all. We know that wrestling was popular, and we even have medieval (genuinely medieval) descriptions of it. But it seems to have been for showing off and building strength, not a serious fighting technique. There's this persistent idea that medieval Europeans fought a lot so they must have developed fighting training systems, but if you look at many pre-modern cultures that survived into relatively recent times, many of them didn't: even though fighting is important for them, too. Fighting seems to have been something where you got the basics (if you were lucky) and then you learned by participating, alongside more seasoned fighters, who would - as much as possible - shield you and teach you as you went along. If you survived - good! If not ... well, there were always more where you came from. Death was a constant companion to everyone in that era and in many cases, inspiring bravery seems to have been more important than inspiring competence.

 

cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

And thus, Martial Arts development in a campaign setting designed with a Medieval European feel in mind (such as many traditional Fantasy RPG's) would be a very personal endeavor as opposed to the skill passed down approach used in Eastern traditions.

 

That doesn't mean your knight couldn't/shouldn't have martial maneuvers. It just means the one's he does have, he developed himself through years of combat experience, or maybe learned from Dad or granddad.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

And thus, Martial Arts development in a campaign setting designed with a Medieval European feel in mind (such as many traditional Fantasy RPG's) would be a very personal endeavor as opposed to the skill passed down approach used in Eastern traditions.

 

That doesn't mean your knight couldn't/shouldn't have martial maneuvers. It just means the one's he does have, he developed himself through years of combat experience, or maybe learned from Dad or granddad.

 

Indeed. like Dirty Infighting.

[Old Man]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Well' date=' if we don't have records of it, we don't have records of it; however, I find it VERY hard to believe that professional fighting men, over a period of hundreds of years, could COMPLETELY fail in noticing what works and what doesn't and telling someone else about it.[/quote']

 

I think that actually happened pretty often in medieval times. But at best it was passed down word-of-mouth and never written down by the possibly illiterate people involved. And there was no successful effort to codify any martial system, perhaps because there were no actual schools dedicated to the practice. Near as I can tell, the closest thing was castle garrisons drilling and sparring in the outer bailey.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

yeah, I think you have to look to some of the tribal cultures to see any hints that might exist. The Tain Bo Culainge mentions Scatha's Battle School for heroes, where men gathered from around Europe to study her war arts, we know the Acheans had Pankration, I have always been fond of the semi-crackpot idea that the various Norse shapeshifter types were actually folk records of early animal totem blood cults.

 

The great "martial art" embraced by European military thinkers from the time of the Romans onwards was Discipline, more than anything else. Those massive heavy cavalry charges that became the ultimate force multiplier of the period took iron discipline. So did formation fighting. Everyone kept trying to reinvent the successes of Rome, because all those flashy ritualized combat cultures got pretty well rolled over when they came up against Roman discipline, and as professionals they weren't dumb, and were quite prideful and didn't enjoy losing, so a lot of them abandoned their old ways in fairly short order and took to the new techiques.

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

And thus, Martial Arts development in a campaign setting designed with a Medieval European feel in mind (such as many traditional Fantasy RPG's) would be a very personal endeavor as opposed to the skill passed down approach used in Eastern traditions.

 

That doesn't mean your knight couldn't/shouldn't have martial maneuvers. It just means the one's he does have, he developed himself through years of combat experience, or maybe learned from Dad or granddad.

 

Yeah, I'd go for that approach quite happily. It shifts the focus from "a paladin martial art" - something that most or many paladins would learn - to individual, personal styles. A warrior with lots of experience could really build up a portfolio of maneuvers.

 

Indeed. like Dirty Infighting.

 

Yup. One of my favourite old FH characters was a serjent from an order of Paladins. One of the other players played a young, idealistic Paladin, with jedi-like powers. I played a grizzled, cynical old warrior with a few dirty fighting tricks.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

yeah, I think you have to look to some of the tribal cultures to see any hints that might exist. The Tain Bo Culainge mentions Scatha's Battle School for heroes, where men gathered from around Europe to study her war arts, we know the Acheans had Pankration, I have always been fond of the semi-crackpot idea that the various Norse shapeshifter types were actually folk records of early animal totem blood cults.

 

The great "martial art" embraced by European military thinkers from the time of the Romans onwards was Discipline, more than anything else. Those massive heavy cavalry charges that became the ultimate force multiplier of the period took iron discipline. So did formation fighting. Everyone kept trying to reinvent the successes of Rome, because all those flashy ritualized combat cultures got pretty well rolled over when they came up against Roman discipline, and as professionals they weren't dumb, and were quite prideful and didn't enjoy losing, so a lot of them abandoned their old ways in fairly short order and took to the new techiques.

 

Interestingly, we know a lot about Roman training, because Tacitus left a detailed description. You are right: Discipline was a key focus and the second aspect was fitness/toughness. Joining the legions meant lots and lots of running - singly, in groups, in armour, with loads, etc. Third was building, with combat training a very distant fourth, and apparently pretty basic. The Roman way of war was apparently that if you had enough decently-trained guys who would obey orders in the right place, then you'd win most of the time. A high level of personal combat skill wasn't apparently required. At the same time, we know that a high level of personal combat skill was considered a virtue and there are records of Roman officers challenging barbarian chiefs to personal combat and winning (of course, it was Romans writing these records, so maybe they didn't record any losses )

 

cheers, Mark

[assault]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

The most influential military text in medieval Europe seems to have been Vegetius' De Re Militari. Fragments of other texts may have also circulated.

 

These weren't about individual fighting methods, though, but about armies and sieges.

 

Western Europe wasn't complete separated from the Byzantine Empire either, so influences from that state's relatively organised forces could have carried over. I'm not sure much would have passed over from the Islamic world, despite very close relations at various points (Christians serving in Islamic armies and vice versa).

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Paladin Martial Art?

 

Yup. One of my favourite old FH characters was a serjent from an order of Paladins. One of the other players played a young, idealistic Paladin, with jedi-like powers. I played a grizzled, cynical old warrior with a few dirty fighting tricks.

 

cheers, Mark

Heh, sounds much like one of my characters, a mercenary turned bounty hunter.

Got into it with my friends' fresh-off-the-monastery warrior monk (of the more D&D style of Monk) over the escaped slavegirl I was dragging back in chains (my g/f's character, in fact) and demonstrated that a handful of sand and a sucker punch can in fact trump a youth spent studying unarmed combat, if one is unaccustomed to unethical fighters.