Well now, that's an interesting thought. And in fact it's one that I had a long time back. But it's only a small part of the story. I'll go with the less important part first. . . .
In short the evidence points to a forced devolution of the martial arts of the conquered parts of the Philippines compared to areas where Spanish influence was weak and they were more freely practiced.
That's very interesting . . . I hadn't got to the history before Thibault, but that makes a lot of sense - I don't know why people think the Arabs and Moors were ignorant, but all you have to do is look at the history of castles and such to realize they took a very practical approach to warfare.
The connection also explains why the Spanish style is so radically different from the rest of Europe.
The manly "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" method of sword fighting also requires a bit of context. . . .
. . . The Italian school was more linear and straightforward than the Spanish. Even so, the surviving manuals place a lot of emphasis on off-line movements like the in quartata, in quintata and the various passes.
Right - we also study Saviolo, and he works on a circle, and angles - never charge up the middle. I've also heard some debate on Fabris, and some others on whether or not the advocated attacking off - line. Even with the lunge.
The extremely linear style of fencing exemplified by the classical French school grew in popularity as it was relegated to sport and the set-piece duel which is just another form of sport when you get right down to it.
That seems to be what I've found, as well. I think you're spot on.
Of course it's easier to teach this sort of thing to tars who only practice the cutlass drill a few times a year. And if you want men to move in formation you teach them to move in straight lines. Otherwise they trip over each other.
I think that's a large part of it - but it seems that different cultures weigh in on bravery/aggression vs. thinking/strategy at different levels.
For instance, the art I study is based on Tang So Do, among others. So far as I've seen, there is almost nothing in the traditional teaching about moving off-line. All the katas and movements involve moving straight in, and beating your opponent by better attack combinations.
It's not a formation type of thing, nor is it a "it's easier to teach in straight lines" kind of thing either. It seems to more of an "the most aggressive typically wins" kind of mindset. The most aggressive attack is straight.
Before the enlightenment, people seemed to look for a supernatural boost by following prescribed rituals, before, and during fighting. The idea was to be "at one" with whatever system you believed in. Which is a good idea, if you are at odds with your beliefs, you will be timid, and hesitant.
After the enlightenment, when there wasn't as much spiritual pressure placed on fighting - it became purely practical, and the cultural shift seemed (to my eyes, anyway) to move towards more of a "macho", "might makes right" kind of mentality. Duels were not fought so much to determine the innocent and the guilty, they culturally shifted to more of a defense of honor and strength. If you didn't respond to a duel, you showed yourself weak, which made you a target. (Also, this idea is common in the middle east, as well, and I don't know if one side influenced the other).
If you're fighting to show strength, as a deadly sport, the straight line attack certainly looks more courageous.
The reason the triangle and circle are used as platforms for footwork has little or nothing to do with the Holy Trinity or the Divine Heavenly circle. If you've been spending time listening to John Michael Greer on this you might want to stop. He is a navel-gazing occultist, not a fighter. And he over-theorizes horribly.
:rofl:
Ahh, you know him? I only took one seminar from him, at the release of his translation of Thibault's manual. I didn't understand most of what he said, and dismissed a lot. He did however, introduce the idea of Platonism to me, which I only caught because it was a missing puzzle piece I had been looking for -- the rest I have been studying myself -- church history, a little bit of architecture, (mostly cathedrals in Italy and Malta), tactics of battle and strategy, and the culture that drove those tactics - eventually I would like to pursue the art a bit more, but one thing at a time!
Actually it was the ideas of
Ramon Martinez that got me started on this train of thought years ago. That a culture drives the "rules of engagement". It was from him that I got the impression that the Spanish fought mathematically and cold-blooded, while the Italian and French fought with passion. This also seems to match my impression of their cultures in that period of history. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)
The more significant bit is simple.
The human body is essentially the same throughout the world. The triangle, circle, straight line and square are similarly identical everywhere except in R'lyeh and the Unspeakable Throne of Azathoth the Blind Idiot Deity
People who are solving the same problem with the same tools over a long time will come up with pretty similar answers. You find this sort of thing in places like Japan and non-Muslim parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It speaks for itself.
That is pretty much what I believe it boils down to. That's why I lean more towards Saviolo's practical swordwork than Thibault's. It's just easier to see the Platonism in Thibault, so I study that for the glimpes into the mindset of the day.
I believe in fighting, and religion, and life in general, that there is an analogy to mathematics.
You start with an equation that is relatively simple, but useless. That is "X" is in a place where it does you no good. In order to harness the power of the equation, you have to first solve for "X". To do that, the equation can become horribly convoluted, filling entire chalkboards. Once you have it all complicated and confusing, and completely impractical, you start eliminating the superfluous. Things start to cancel out. By the time you're done, you're left with a simple equation, that is useful.
So, simple is the best, but you can't skip the process of making it complicated, before it becomes simple, otherwise, you won't understand what to do with even the simple bits.
The idea is to hit so well that your opponent never comes to blows himself. Whether you're thinking about Fire, elephants or marmosets really doesn't matter so long as your opponent ends up beneath the grass and you get to go home.
