The flyring side kick..

[bowlie]

Originally Posted by Discipulus

I love the notion that the peasantry, in any country, were somehow able to come up with superior methods of combat than their social betters, who were, in many cases, comprised mainly of professional warriors. I would pay good money to see someone flying side kick a man off of a horse. Again, not only is grabbing his arm and dragging him a much easier option, but it makes physical sense. What kind of precarious saddle is this warrior seated in that a man leaping at him with a kick will instantly knock him to the ground. At worst, the guy would lose his balance and the guy throwing the kick would fall on his ass and promptly get trampled.

The Chinese invented the stirrup. Falling off a horse shouldn't be that easy.

at that impact level it would probably shatter your knees. But I take issue with your first point, if you look at victorian prizefighters, those guys were tough as nails, and the middle and upper classes were all ponces

[Bay Area]

Originally Posted by slip slip hook

Just to end things: Point to one succesful peasant rebellion

You are dagging me back in to tihs.

I dont need to point to a successful peasant rebellion. It doesn't need to be successful. Peasants revolted countless times in history. They fought. They didn't have access to the latest weaponry. Therefore, they had to improvise. They had to use whatever they had at hand. Rocks, tools, and yes feet and fists. It doesn't matter if wave after wave of peasant was slaughtered in the process. The point is they improvised and fought. Are you saying peasants never fought?

[Phlog]

I read a study which suggested the peasents actually had long periods of inactivity, it was later mechanisation and specialization which enabled the modern wage slave.

On the matter of peasents being lousy soldiers hence centuries of feudalism.. jeez, Having superior weapons or martial prowess does not lead to a people throwing off the yolk of an oppressive regime, case in point: US, ruled by the rich for their benefit with one of the best armed poor in the world.

The 'average Joe' has been societies soldier since tribal times. If you don't wanna go back that far, how bout the Romans or the Mongals. It is the 'professional' soldier which is the modern concept not the other way.

No one suggested it was a superior method, quite the opposite. That would be why the peasentry may have used it.

A spear is the weapon of choice against cavalry, a big bloody stick.

Nearly all rebellions are by there very nature conducted by the poorist, type in peasent revolt into Google if you want examples.

You may be right that this particular technique was not an invention of the poor but you have not given any reasonable criticism of the hypothesis. It is your job to refute it, that's how human understanding moves forward, its a basic requirement of debate, philosophy and science. Otherwise we all just put forward opinion, stated and just continue to disagree forever... oh sheeeit...

I'm trying hard not to smack my forehead in frustration here, I should be asleep, not correcting you on either basic logic or your ignorance of a generally accepted view of history. Your actually communicating using the greatest sum of human knowledge ever imagined without seemingly paying attention to it before spouting your ill conceived opinions. I'm sure your nice people, just try a bit harder. Sorry, I don't know what else to say. Ah nevermind.

[HIMBOB]

Loved the first two responses.

And no.
I fall over enough as it is, no need to start flying.

[slip slip hook]

Originally Posted by Bay Area

It doesn't need to be successful.

i was under the impression that you were saying they improvised and were succesfull....went back and saw someone else said succesfull

[slip slip hook]

Originally Posted by Phlog

1 I read a study which suggested the peasents actually had long periods of inactivity,

2 On the matter of peasents being lousy soldiers hence centuries of feudalism.. jeez, Having superior weapons or martial prowess does not lead to a people throwing off the yolk of an oppressive regime, case in point: US, ruled by the rich for their benefit with one of the best armed poor in the world.

3 The 'average Joe' has been societies soldier since tribal times. If you don't wanna go back that far, how bout the Romans or the Mongals. It is the 'professional' soldier which is the modern concept not the other way.

1) they had "spare time during the non harvesting/planting times but were still very busy doing stuff for the lord

2) not really sure what your trying to say here.i didnt say feudalsim was oppressive or that the peasants did or didnt try to get rid of it. Feudalism developed because the peasants were lousy soldiers so kings/chieftains needed professional soldiers to fight for them

3) the Romans/Greeks had more of the citizen soldier that we see today. Their soldiers owned land and had a vested interest in the success of the state so they fought. Peasants, win or lose, their lot doesnt improve its just a new monarch/lord that they work for now

also tribes like the mongols experienced higher levels of freedom/equality for their members

im saying peasants (defined as people who work land they dont own for the benefit of others) make lousy soldiers

[Pugilistic]

Originally Posted by Bay Area

In the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, it was the flying side kick that turned the tide of the war and expelled the Samurai

Lol what? Where are you getting your sources?

It wasn't Chinese military support or Yi Sun Shin's naval dominance that won the war, it was flying kicks by peasants? I would love to see a historian claim this so I can call him a quack.

Originally Posted by slip slip hook

1) they had "spare time during the non harvesting/planting times but were still very busy doing stuff for the lord

Well, according to this http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/user..._workweek.html,
people got a lot of holidays off and got time off between working hours during a work day.

The labouring man will take his rest long in the morning; a good piece of the day is spent afore he come at his work; then he must have his breakfast, though he have not earned it at his accustomed hour, or else there is grudging and murmuring; when the clock smiteth, he will cast down his burden in the midway, and whatsoever he is in hand with, he will leave it as it is, though many times it is marred afore he come again; he may not lose his meat, what danger soever the work is in. At noon he must have his sleeping time, then his bever in the afternoon, which spendeth a great part of the day; and when his hour cometh at night, at the first stroke of the clock he casteth down his tools, leaveth his work, in what need or case soever the work standeth.

A thirteenth-century estime finds that whole peasant families did not put in more than 150 days per year on their land. Manorial records from fourteenth-century England indicate an extremely short working year -- 175 days -- for servile laborers.

[Bay Area]

Originally Posted by Phlog

No one suggested it was a superior method, quite the opposite. That would be why the peasentry may have used it.

Win! The whole point is that it was an inferior method. and THAT is why the poor could have used it.

Nearly all rebellions are by there very nature conducted by the poorist, type in peasent revolt into Google if you want examples.

Win!

You may be right that this particular technique was not an invention of the poor but you have not given any reasonable criticism of the hypothesis. It is your job to refute it, that's how human understanding moves forward, its a basic requirement of debate, philosophy and science.

3 in a row!! If you don't agree with the myth, it is your job to defute it, not mine

[Bay Area]

Originally Posted by Discipulus

It's a common myth, so it's my job to "defute" it? Alright, so... Trolling confirmed, then. Peace.

Yes. I didn't create the myth. I didn't even bring it up in this thread. It is widely regarded as true. So if you have a problem with it, then debunk it. Otherwise your oppions are worthless.

[Nuclearlandmine]

Oh god the horrors....
Reminded me of all the bullshits and myth "traditional" martial artists in Asian spew out about their arts and how advanced it is. Yeah sure.....let's all drink the kool aids. I hear this shits all the time from delusional people here.

And also, anyone that put out the claims about the myth that peasants can use flying side kick to dismount riders on horse needs to put out the proofs on why it is so. The burden of proofs are on the people who claims so, not the guys outright refuse to believe it because the lack of reasonable explanation. Especially when there are much more efficient methods peasants can use that doesn't put yourself under risk of getting nailed by a spear. Just because it is widely believed to be true doesn't make it so. Yeah, majority of people in here believe that the only proper muay thai stance is hunched back, squared and either front foot heavy or 50/50 between legs. Looks at how that turned out.

Also bringing peasants rebellion is rather pointless to prove whether or not peasants have martial prowess or it have to improvise with inferior techniques as where it is about the numbers game, not which sides is more well-trained.