DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KUNGFU KNIGHTS AND EUROPEAN KNIGHTS IN THE PHILOSOPHY, SKILL, FORM AND APPLICATION OF THEIR WEAPONS
Kungfu knights from the film "Dragon Inn", picture culled from http://www.close-upfilm.com/2015/10/dragon-inn-review/
Question
I have always been fascinated by both Shaolin knights and European knights. Hence my question: Could you compare the philosophy, form, skill and application of typical Shaolin weapons with weapons used by typical 12th century European knights (for instance knights Templar?)
Sifu Roeland Dijkema
Answer
I don’t know much about European knights, so my answer will mainly be on kungfu knights in China. In the question you mentioned about Shaolin knights. I reckon you meant kungfu knights, as many of these kungfu knights might might not belong to the Shaolin tradition. There were, of course, also many kungfu knights related to Shaolin.
Right at the start we need to know that the word "knight" in "kungfu knifght" is my translation from the Chinese word "xia", or "hap" in Cantonese, and is quite different from the word “knight” as used in "European knight". But the English word "knight" was the best term I could think of for the Chinese word "xia".
A European knight had his title bestowed upon him by a monarch for gallant service to the government. The European knight was typically seen on horseback, wore armour and led an army of soldiers. These images that typically describe a European knight are totally untypical of a Chinese kungfu knight.
A Chinese kungfu knight disdained government service and was honoured not by a monarch but by the people. He was rarely on horseback, never wore armour, and had no soldiers, though he might sometimes fought against them. Hence, the images typical of a European knight and of a Chinese kungfu knight are diagonally different.
There were, however, two similarities. Both were chivalrous and both were greatly admired by women. It was mainly because of their chivalry that I chose the English word “knight” for the Chinese word “xia”, and the admiration from the fairer sex add romance to the concept.
What I know of the philosophy, form, skill and application of weapons of the European knight was from movies, and I suspect it might not give an accurate picture of European knight weaponry.
The philosophy of the weapons of both the European knight and the kungfu knight was similar and highly admirable. Their philosophy was that of righteousness. Both the European knight and the kungfu knight used their weapons to right wrongs. But the depth of their philosophy was different.
Mainly from movies, my impression of the philosophy of a European knight regarding his weapon was to defend his honour, often without much logic! For example, if Knight A thought that Knight B had an affair with his (the former’s) love, they would settle the issue over a duel.
This was illogical because the outcome of the duel would only show which knight was more combat efficient, and would not show whether Knight B had an affair with the love of Knight A.
Leaving logic aside, it was believed at that time that if Knight B were guilty, God would make him lose the fuel or his life. If he were not guilty, God would make the false accuser, i.e. Knight A, be defeated, fatally or otherwise. It showed their great trust in God, or if they secretly did not believe in God, their great pretense to believe in God.
The Chinese kungfu knights were more logical, if not less devotional. If Knight X suspected that Knight Y had an affair with his (the former’s) love, he would not settle the issue over a duel, but he would ask Knight Y, knowing that Knight Y, guided by his code of honour, would always tell the truth. If they ever had a duel, it would not be because of this issue, it would be because they wanted to find out who was more combat efficient.
What would Knight Y say? He would say the truth. If the accusation was true, he might say, “Yes, it is true. I would sincerely suggest that you spend more time with your love.” If the accusation was not true, he might say, “No, it’s not true. Don’t listen to rumours.”
The form of their weapon was different. The typical weapon of European knights was the lance, whereas the typical weapon of Chinese kungfu knights was the Chinese sword. As European knights were often on horseback, using a lance was appropriate. As Chinese kungfu knights were usually on foot, using a sword was ideal.
Judging from the way movies show how European knights used their weapons, which I suspect might not give a true presentation of the situation, the European knights were not skillful. In fact, they depended more on the strength of their shields and the pointedness of their lances than on their combat skills.
For one trained in martial art, it is indeed shocking to see European knights who were supposed to be experts in combat, charging wildly and thrusting their lances at each other with total disregard of their own safety and an exhibition of a total lack of combat skills, tactics and strategies. Yet, reflecting on the situation of martial arts today, we may not be so surprised after all. It is commonplace to see martial artists today generously exchanging blows with each other with total disregard for their own safety and an exhibition of a glaring lack of self-defence, though shockingly they may not realize it.
The sword was the choice weapon of kungfu knights
On the other hand, Chinese kungfu knights were very skillful in combat. They could fight their way through an ambush of over a hundred opponents, and come out unscratched.
If a kungfu knight were to fight a European knight in a duel on horseback, the kungfu knight would not fight the way European knights fought as shown in movies. He would dodge his opponent’s lance, or use his spear to deflect the opponent’s weapon, before thrusting his spear into the opponent. Or he might first injure the opponent’s horse, then thrust his spear into the opponent while he lied helplessly on the ground.
If a kungfu knight were to fight a European knight in a duel on foot, the kungfu knight would also not fight the way European knights fought as shown in movies. The kungfu knight would not, for example, clash his sword against his opponent’s heavier weapon, as doing so would break his sword into pieces. He would slash the attacking hand or wrist of the opponent as he attacked to disarm him before executing a coup de grace. If his opponent lifted up his weapon to get ready for a downward chop, or swing his weapon to a side to prepare for a horizontal sweep, the kungfu knight would thrust his sword into the opponent’s ribs even before the opponent could start his chop or sweep.
In general, a kungfu knight used brain, whereas a European knight, as shown in movies, used brawn.
Of course both European knights and kungfu knights applied their weapons for combat, not for decoration. But how they applied the weapons was different. To a kungfu knight his weapon, almost always his sword, was his life, even more important to him than his lady-love if he had one, and usually he did not have one though he might have many ladies who loved him, unlike his European counterpart who considered his lady-love, real or imagined, the inspiration for all his endeavours.
But the European knights did not give me this impression that the weapon they used in combat was the weapon, and not just any weapon, even when this any weapon was of the same kind, like a lance. To kungfu knights the weapon they used, almost always a sword, was always the same weapon, the same sword.
Interestingly, European knights and kungfu knights viewed their weapon and lady-love in reverse perspective. To European knights, their lady-love, real or imagined, was always the same lady-love, but they changed weapon frequently. Kungfu knights usually did not have a lady-love, though many ladies loved them dearly, because they considered a lady-love a hindrance to their freedom of movement, but their weapon, always real, was their sole dedication. So if you are an unmarried woman looking for a modern knight, finding one who believes in the European tradition is more worthy.
The impression I have of weapon application by European knights is that they used only techniques, and seldom considered tactics and strategies. If they ever used tactics and strategies, as some clever ones in movies did, the tactics and strategies were incidental and personal. Kungfu knights used tactics and strategies besides techniques. To them tactics and strategies are not incidental and personal. While these are still kept as top secrets, tactics and strategies were taught to them by their masters as a legacy from institutionalized training.
Just considering techniques, those used by European knights were crude by comparison. Typically a European knight would charge at his opponent on horseback in a duel, and it would be over in one encounter. The knight would either remain triumphant on horseback, probably receiving a flower form his lady-love, and surely applaud from the cheering crowd, or felled by his opponent, lying dead or wounded on the ground.
If he fought on ground without the burden of his heavy armour, he could use more techniques, but the techniques were still crude and straightforward. If an opponent chopped down with a heavy weapon, he would block it with his heavy weapon. Often he had to wrestle with his opponent, where muscular strength, instead of skills, was a decisive factor for victory.
This imagery of fighting by European knights was derived from movies. Frankly, I don’t think European knights really fought this way. It would be rewarding if any family members or guests who know how European knights fought, can give some description on our forum.
Kungfu knights never fought this way. Unlike Chinese generals in battles, kungfu knights rarely fought on horseback. The techniques employed by Chinese generals on horseback were much more refined and sophisticated. They also used a lot of tactics and strategies.
A popular tactic used by Chinese generals, yet many unsuspecting opponents still fell into it, was known as “wooi ma cheong” (in Cantonese), or “hui ma jiang” in Mandarin and literally “return-horse-spear” in English. The general pretended to lose the fight and fled. The opponent chased after him. Suddenly the general turned around – himself on his horse, or together with his horce – and thrust his spear into the opponent.
A popular strategy was for the general to run away with his soldiers with the opponent general and his army chasing after them. When the opponents were trapped in a steep valley, fire torches, rocks and arrows would rain on them.
Long ago the great strategies, Sun Tzu, advised generals to study the terrain as well as the weather before engaging in battles. Had Napoleon followed Sun Tzu’s advice, he would have saved millions of his soldiers from the bitter Russian cold.
The techniques of the kungfu knights in their weapon application were refined and sophisticated. If an opponent chopped down with a heavy weapon, for example, a kungfu knight would not block it with his sword. He would, for example, move his body slightly away from the direction of the downward chop, and simultaneously slash up his sword at the opponent’s wrist. He would not wrestle with his opponent. He might circulate his sword at his opponent’s arm or turn his waist to throw the opponent onto the ground before finishing him off with a decisive thrust.
We are very lucky to live in the present world where return-horse-spear, fire torches, rocks, arrows and slashing sword are not our daily concern. Even when you are in the Russian cold, heaters will keep you warm. Yet a comparison of the philosophy, form, skill and application of weapons used by typical kungfu knights and European knights will benefit us in daily life. We learn, for example, that using brain is usually better than using brawn.
European knights, from http://www.questgarden.com/53/67/9/080421154934/t-learners.htm
This answer is taken from Special Weapon Course: 10 Questions to Grandmaster Wong of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute Discussion Forum.
LINKS
Courses and Classes