# Traditional Chinese battle array training



## brianlkennedy (Jun 24, 2007)

That illustration is taken from a modern day manual for teaching people here in Taiwan how to do the Sung Chiang Battle Arrays ([FONT=&#26032]&#23435;&#27743;&#37806;[/FONT]). Although nowadays these performances are folk temple performances, in these past these Sung Chiang Battle Arrays were used to train Taiwanese village militias. They were the real deal on traditional Chinese martial arts.

  The real deal on traditional Chinese martial arts is almost completely opposite from modern day Chinese martial arts. Let me highlight the differences; if you were the average Chinese martial artists of let us say 1776 (since we are talking about militias, albeit Chinese ones, let us pick the year America declared independence!):

  You practiced first with weapons, mostly with weapons. Empty hand forms were a very, very small part of your training day.
  You practiced mostly in military formation with you fellow village militiamen (and yes, back then it was all menbrave kung fu girl Mulan is a Disneyland deal).
Your practice placed a huge emphasis on very basic strikes and jabs with your weapon
Your teacher did not much care about your structure, how low your stances were, or whether the chi was shooting out your hands. What they wanted is good anaerobic endurance (the ability to fight full bore for 1 to 3 minutes without gassing) and strong upper body to be able to manipulate the weapon without your arms getting tired and weak.
Your training often involved a rattan shield. It was a major skill to be able to crouch down behind the shield to protect yourself from projectile weapons such as arrows, shrapnel (Chinese used all kinds of what in modern terms would be called claymore mines, or grenades) and maybe musket fire (yes there were firearms in China and in Taiwan in the 1700s)
The key quality was keeping in formation and doing what you were told when you were told. No individual stars out there with their double half moon spears "wowing" the other side with their form.
  Soas you can see, it was quite the opposite from how modern day traditional Chinese martial arts is taught. I found this manual because I am preparing an article on Taiwanese battle arrays and thought it might be of interest. Taiwan really does have an interesting martial arts past. 

  Take care,
  Brian


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 24, 2007)

Excellent and most informative. Re-affirms my beliefs about CMA today, but I was not aware that Taiwan had a long history under Chinese rule, though it makes sense to me now. You seem to have a knack for finding very interesting things. May I ask if you know of any place that is teaching the use of traditional weaponry in the manner that it was intended to be taught? Keep up the good work. You manage to say what I have been saying the whole time in a more informative and non-aggressive way. That gets you a point.


----------



## count (Jun 24, 2007)

My sifu told me, they sometimes used that "bagua" array as a code identifying directions on the dusty battlefields. He taught that "weapons first" is the traditional way. It is a quicker way to build structure. Forms and open hand always follow basics and group training.

But when it comes to ancient systems being taught in modern times, most people are only interested as a hobby, and would rather just mix it up quick. I'm sure from an historic perspective, he would find your article interesting. But than, he's from Taiwan and was in the military. Always a bit of a history buff too. Personally, I would be interested of your focus is on the single movement and basic training for the weapons. I always fell asleep in history class. :caffeine:

Let us know if it's available to us when you publish. I will surely pass it along.

Informative post.:supcool:


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 24, 2007)

Reminds me of an old spear form my teacher learned when he was in Beijing.  It consisted of three movements - parry, deflect, and thrust, all three practiced at a low, middle, and high position.  Small movements all designed for use in large close-order formations.  Quite different from the polearm form that forms part our weapon curriculum.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 29, 2007)

Very nice, very informative but I think you may be combining martial arts training that would be taken up with a Sifu or at Shaolin in the 1776 with Militia and or military training that would have existed in China in 1776 (Qing Dynasty or Manchu). 

They are not exactly the same. 

Shaolin was documented as existing as early as the 700s and was definitely teaching martial arts (animal forms) in the 1600s not battle arrays. 

And Xingyi although attributed to Yue Fei in the 1100 and supposedly based on a spear form can really only be documented much later with Ji Jike in the 1600s and although it did train weapons and may be based on a spear form, Santi and empty hand were still a big part of that training. 

Taijiquan, or at least the taiji we know of today is from Chen Wangting 1600-1680 and although it also trained weapons it to had an empty handed system and was VERY concerned with posture and internal power

Shuaijiao with a possibly origin in the year 2697 BC and it is wholly unconcerned with weapons. Regardless it was in existence during the Qin Dynasty as Jiao Li which did later get changed to Shuaijiao in 1928. Also fairly uninterested in training weapons or battle arrays.

And of course you also have Long Fist which was developed in the 10th c960&#8211;1279

Just to name a few

But I will admit that weapons training in ancient China both individual and military were a much bigger part of CMA pre Kuomintang


----------

