Martial Christianity (or Christ-Fu)

OK, here's how it goes:

352 (POD): A pagan Gothic warlord and warrior, Theodoric (not the later king) converts to Roman Christianity. He becomes a monk, but ceases neither his martial training nor his battles; in fact, he writes volumes on fighting, particularly the personal fighting that the barbarians employ, as opposed to the drilled war of the Romans. Theodoric's lessons are later referred to as the Fist of God, and his writings (on everything from where to hit on the body to incapacitate/kill a foe to a strict regimen of diet and exercise) are all wrapped up under his fervent belief that, as the body is the temple of the soul, it is the responsibility of a person to keep that temple as well as possible.

452: Rather than paying attention to Pope Leo I (or returning to his capital before the onset of winter) Attila the Hun proceeds to ravage the eternal city; this includes the public (and very gruesome) execution of the Pope for speaking to Attila as an equal, rather than as a great king. Attila finally returns from Rome after much loot and plunder, and dies of a nose bleed in his sleep. The event is pivotal, however, for it shows the Roman Church that it is defenseless, and cannot count on the might of the government (at the time, the Western Roman Empire) to protect it. The next pope, Pope Julius II, discovers the teachings of the long-dead Theodoric, who is soon sainted as St. Theodore the Great, and commands the faithful to live up to standards set by the Fist of God; the faithful, naturally, are monks, who, as the years go by, devote themselves to studying, applying, and perfecting the techniques of St. Theodore in their monastery retreats. The monks, although heavily insulated due to their regimens (one monastery hidden in the Alps, known as the Fury of the Righteous, only accepted those who appeared at its doorstep dressed only in a hairskin habit, despite the extreme climate), make their presence known when necessary; in particular, they made passage south into Italy all but impossible for hostile foes, particularly the Ostrogoths, and the Italian peninsula thus remained relatively free, although raiding parties did ravage much of the north. Thus, when, in 476, the puppet Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, sent the Imperial Regalia to Emperor Zeno of Constantinople, the monks acted; under strict orders from the Pope Julius II, who feared meeting a similar fate as Pope Leo I, a group of 22 monks, having spent the past two decades training under the arts of St. Theodore, kill Odovacar and some one hundred of his highest retainers when, during a feast in which the monks have been invited to pray, Odovacar (more than half drunk) remarks, "I wonder what Attila would do if he kept Italia." Most of the monks escape successfully, with four remaining back to hold off Odovacar's soldiers at a narrow pass (immortalized in da Vinci's painting, "The Slaying of Odovacar," in which the four monks hold back a tide of iron as their compatriots escape to inform the Pope).

With Italy now without a secular ruler, Emperor Zeno accepts the Imperial Regalia and proclaims himself the emperor of the reunited Roman Empire. With the Mother See of Rome now in the Empire, no form of schism develops, and the Roman Empire now includes the Byzantine Empire and Italy; the fighting styles of the monks quickly spreads, and more monasteries emerge.

I think that's all for tonight; I'll work this into a war against Islam later, if there is any interest for it.
 

Hendryk

Banned
There was an order of Christian warrior monks in OTL, the Knights Templar. Notwithstanding all the conspiracy theories that revolve around them, they didn't have much of an impact on the course of history.
I may sound rather like a killjoy here, but I think martial arts can only develop in a speficic cultural context, which was not present in late Roman or early medieval Europe. To put it in a nutshell, it requires a perception of the body and of its relationship with its environment that is not compatible with the Abrahamic (Judeo/Christian/Muslim) worldview. Even now, after decades of exposure to East Asian cultures, most Westerners still don't get martial arts (I said most, not all).
A POD that might conceivably lead to the apparition of martial arts in Europe would be if the Greeks' encounter with Bactrian buddhists in the wake of Alexander's conquests led to buddhism gaining a foothold in the Hellenistic world. Even then, some ingredients may still be missing. OTOH, this new religion might preempt the development of Christianity, which is a fascinating idea in its own right.
 
Hendryk said:
I may sound rather like a killjoy here, but I think martial arts can only develop in a speficic cultural context,

I think so too! I am going so far to add the impact of an envirmentel context to this. In my personel theory, the fact that the martial arts rose to such a high skill in east asia is due to physical circumstances. The people that excell in martial arts are small and do not weigh so much. this is not good in a fight Due the hilly and foresty landscape, they can not use horses in order to improove their fighting abilities. So they start martial arts.
I already thougt of a way to prove this thesis, but have not yet done it.
 
Didn't martial arts become popular because weapons weren't needed, and because the peasantry was banned from owning them?
 
Good day
Nice, but...
As I understand it Europe had and even still HAS martial arts, though they were mostly crippled by large formations and easy to use weapons.Nowadays some (fencing, boxing) exist only in sport arena, whereas others (savate) are still mainly fighting techniques.
On the other hand, I would not grant martial arts to the culture. For sake of gods even classic Anglo-Saxon myth, Robin Hood, has seceral references to martial arts!
The Christian Knightly Monastic Orders (Hospitalers, Templars) fought like an army and martial arts (of likes of savate, kung-fu and others) are unsusable in large scale mediaeval operation.
 
Actually, buddhism has nothing to do with the martial arts. And the Chinese did employ cavalry; the region isn't inhospitable towards it.

The closest thing to a reason for why the martial arts developed more in the east than in the west was because it did; funny thing about history is, there often isn't a concrete reason for something.

Oh, and come on, man. At least give me SOME credit; you're describing the Knights Templar like I'm some kind of ignorant hick. Besides, the Templar were not, in any way shape or form, monks. They were knights, armored knights, who fought as an army; at first they defended pilgrimage routes, and later expanded. They were all the knights of Europe who gave up all their possessions to the Order itself, NOT monks.
 
Europe most decidedly has (and had) Martial Arts, but the philosophy is totally different. MOst eastern MA that I looked at have a philosophical core that leads back to internal contemplation, 'going with the flow' and acquiring physical and mental balance. To Europeans, Martial Arts were tools to an end or an arena of achievement (I still don't get how there can be Kung Fu championships, BTW. how does that work? Two high-level practitioners meditating at each other?). That is also why empty hand techniques never achieved the kind of prominence they had in the East - weapons were so very useful, and if you're not after balance and harmony, a sword doesn't get in your way.

There were writings on martial arts in antiquity, though none survive (the church had them destroyed or simply ignored them, and they weren't that popular to begin with). Wrestling, boxing, pankration, the traditional hoplomacheia and the Roman armatura were all highly developed, sophisticated fighting systems (it looks like equal levels of sophistication were achieved by the barbarians about whose fighting style we know next to nothing). So the idea of a Gothic MA 'sensei' is not that off (at the time, you could still make a living giving instruction in combat sports in Rome).

The problem is the Church. Majority opinion at the time was rabidly anti-body. I don't see how anything that is supposed to make you feel good about your body is going to become acceptable, no matter its utility. Especially given that the ancient world had a strong cultural link between war, sports, health and sex. It took many more generations until the church could eventually (uneasily) accomodate warrior-monks under its capacious skirts, and even so the Templars were required to do some strange things (such as, not wash, grow long beards, and never hunt - except lions). These guys are almost certainly destined for a footnote under 'interesting heresies', I'm afraid.
 
Knight Of Armenia said:
. Besides, the Templar were not, in any way shape or form, monks. They were knights, armored knights, who fought as an army; at first they defended pilgrimage routes, and later expanded. They were all the knights of Europe who gave up all their possessions to the Order itself, NOT monks.

I do not know if you are talking to me, but I would say that Knightly Orders sanctioned by Holy See did had certain monastic qualities, for no better reason that they swore fealthy to Pope. But I am not all that familiar with their organization...
 
Knight Of Armenia said:
Actually, buddhism has nothing to do with the martial arts.

They'd disagree with you in the Shaolin monastery, I suspect.

Knight Of Armenia said:
And the Chinese did employ cavalry; the region isn't inhospitable towards it.

Depends where in China you are: much of the south is very poor cavalry country. But the usual version of the anti-cavalry story is that Chinese peasant rebel groups like the Red Turbans developed martial-arts techniques to counter Mongol cavalry during the resistance to the Yuan in the 14th century.

Knight Of Armenia said:
Besides, the Templar were not, in any way shape or form, monks.

Technically correct, but:

St Bernard of Clairvaux said:
I do not know if it would be more appropriate to refer to them as monks or as soldiers, unless perhaps it would be better to recognize them as being both. Indeed they lack neither monastic meekness nor military might.
 

Hendryk

Banned
carlton_bach said:
Europe most decidedly has (and had) Martial Arts, but the philosophy is totally different. MOst eastern MA that I looked at have a philosophical core that leads back to internal contemplation, 'going with the flow' and acquiring physical and mental balance. To Europeans, Martial Arts were tools to an end or an arena of achievement (I still don't get how there can be Kung Fu championships, BTW. how does that work? Two high-level practitioners meditating at each other?). That is also why empty hand techniques never achieved the kind of prominence they had in the East - weapons were so very useful, and if you're not after balance and harmony, a sword doesn't get in your way.

The problem is the Church. Majority opinion at the time was rabidly anti-body. I don't see how anything that is supposed to make you feel good about your body is going to become acceptable, no matter its utility. Especially given that the ancient world had a strong cultural link between war, sports, health and sex.

Exactly. That's what I was referring to. The West doesn't have martial arts, it has combat techniques and fighting sports. Now there's nothing wrong with an ATL in which a given monastic order develops a combat technique of its own, but it may not qualify as a martial art unless certain conditions are met, which I'm afraid could not be met in a Christian context.
As I said, the introduction of buddhism alone may not be enough to do the trick; there are buddhist cultures that never developed martial arts. What I think is needed is the right mix of buddhism and taoism (or any other philosophy that views reality in dynamic terms and the human body in terms of lifeforce or vital energy). In OTL, this combination has existed in China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan and a handful of neighboring cultures. For it to appear ex nihilo in early medieval Europe would require a significant transformation of Western culture.
As far as the use of cavalry in China is concerned, Knight of Armenia and Duncan are both right. The northern half of the country is indeed suitable for large-scale mounted warfare, which is why it has so often been invaded by horse-riding steppe nomads like the Xiongnu, the Mongols and the Manchus. South of the Yangzi, however, it's way too lush and watery for cavalry to be any good. Anyway, the Chinese have never been too fond of cavalry; they used war chariots from the Shang to the Qin dynasties, and after that the only times when horses are present in China in significant numbers is when the barbarians have taken over (Three Kingdoms period to early Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty, early Qing dynasty). It takes open pastures to raise horses, and from a Chinese point of view pasture is a waste of arable land better used to grow wheat or rice.
 
This is a pretty cool idea, what if the martial arts that were present in Europe were preserved in a cohesive 'philosphical' framework similar to that of the East?

I like the POD first mentioned, and in some ways it makes sense. What if the early Theoderic had been a convert not from his earlier pagan beliefs but from Mithraism, with its whole thing of levels of training/belief? (There are some earlier posts on this in Mithra World). Western Christainity adopted a lot of its practices and beliefs from Mithraism anyway, so we're not in ASB territory if we have it (or a branch - say Arianism) adopt more of the practices which later absorb or develop more philosphical principals.
 
Norman said:
This is a pretty cool idea, what if the martial arts that were present in Europe were preserved in a cohesive 'philosphical' framework similar to that of the East?

You could argue that they were, though at a later date. Think of it: until the first half of the twentieth century, the sons of Europe's ruling elite were brought up to mastery in riding, swordsmanship, riflery, pistol marksmanship and singlestick play - most of it of a form and style long disappeared outside their circles, with little or no practical usefulness (unless they were to become commanders of Native Horse in India or North Africa) but intended to instil a sense of good Christian gentlemanly virtue and chivalry...

I'd say that's a martial art embedded in a philosophical framework and distinct from practical use.
 
There was martial arts in Europe, they just died out with the coming of modern weapons.
I remember reading something about how Robin Hood and co were martial artists.
I suppose boxing could be counted as a surviving martial art.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
As the Wikipedia article says, the entire field of gymnastics is in fact a highly stylized representation of various battlefield skills. (though one has to wonder at the image of an army of barely pubescent females vaulting over one’s fortifications this idea conjures now). Donn Draeger in Asian Martial Arts traces most Asian forms to the Pankraton of the Greeks and its Indian descendants

That being said, a main difference between the East and West is the centrality of the mind-body dichotomy in Western beliefs which the East lacks, and this will always have a main effect in how martial arts, or any physical activity for that matter, is viewed. I have heard Zen and Taoism itself described as “a sort of judo for the mind†and IMHO that is a fairly accurate depiction.
 

Hendryk

Banned
NapoleonXIV said:
I have heard Zen and Taoism itself described as “a sort of judo for the mind†and IMHO that is a fairly accurate depiction.

Actually, you may say that judo is Zen for the body.
The difference between East and West is that in the West, at least since the advent of Christianity, it has been unthinkable to use physical training as a means to spiritual self-improvement. If anything, the body had to be mortified. Even today, on a subconscious level, I'm not sure we've got over it.
 
OK, a lot of you are focusing on Christianity's focus on the spirit instead of the soul, rather than as well as; the problem, however, is that you are all basing this on 2000 years of Christianity, when the POD occurs in the 300s. St. Augustine (the guy who formulated the ideas you are all saying, basically) isn't given the same importance by the Church, since the Pope chooses St. Theodore instead. That is kind of the point of a POD that takes place a long time ago: it alters the things that come afterwards. Applying Dark Ages and medieval concepts of Christianity to a POD set during the Roman Empire... doesn't quite work out there.
 
Knight Of Armenia said:
OK, a lot of you are focusing on Christianity's focus on the spirit instead of the soul, rather than as well as; the problem, however, is that you are all basing this on 2000 years of Christianity, when the POD occurs in the 300s. St. Augustine (the guy who formulated the ideas you are all saying, basically) isn't given the same importance by the Church, since the Pope chooses St. Theodore instead. That is kind of the point of a POD that takes place a long time ago: it alters the things that come afterwards. Applying Dark Ages and medieval concepts of Christianity to a POD set during the Roman Empire... doesn't quite work out there.

The mind-body dichotomy and the denigration of the body at the expense of the soul predates Augustinus (hell, it predates Christ...). That's why I'm saying you'll need an early POD - around the time of the second generation, Paul maybe. The variety of different takes on Christianity in the 1st century is mind-boggling, just have some of it survive differently.
 
Top