The 1857 rebellion resulted in "martial race" classifications, such that certain groups were effectively excluded from military service. The 1878 Indian Arms Act mandated licenses for making or carrying arms (incl. daggers, swords, spears and bows). Perhaps nothing was explicitly banned. Just discouraged through economic and legal pressures.
"Perhaps nothing was explicitly banned" Nope, I have just watched some indians history video about it and they were explecity banned, anyone who was seen with any of those weapons or was keep practicing any way of fighting martial art was directly sended to jail. In fact, after the indians got their independence there was nobody to who remebered how to use their martial arts, it was thanks to some history records that the indians could brought back their martiala arts.
Isn't that technically what it means to be "banned under British administered territories" but patronized in Princely states. Since by end of 1857 , all those princely states had now considered queen Victoria as their empress?
@@capscaps04 well, there had to be a historical document describing such a ban, similar to the 1878 Indian Arms Act. And they produced it as evidence in that Indian “history” video you mentioned, right? Right?..
@@violentfox th-cam.com/video/9jD3NT6cutI/w-d-xo.html Watch it. The main reason why they banned is because indian martial arts and the buildings they used to practice it was were the indians warriors previous to british colonization came from. They are even videos of how british shot on the street indians who were practitioners of it. Wich is not something hard to believe considering the long history of the british to shot indians on the street without any warning.
But you have to admit, "check out our secret, banned form of combat" sounds a bit sexier than "the British didn't give a fig about what we were doing."
+Nathan Wheatley Thanks Nathan, I think you just solved that mystery. If someone were to tell me "Oh no! My art is forbidden for being too powerful! If you learned it, you'll become TOO dangerous and badass!", you know what? I just might be gullible enough to pay for lessons!
+Nathan Wheatley Partly, but I'd also think that Indian independence movement and nationalism during/after it played a role. Something similar happened in China with internal vs external styles - ever noticed how internal styles are both supposedly superior and originated in konfucian or taoist china (unlike, say, buddhist Shaolin)?
Thanks Praveen, that's a very interesting point. I have looked into the Indian Arms Act and it certainly seems to have squashed Indian manufacture and carrying of all kinds of weapons, mostly guns but also swords and other weapons. It even lists bows and spears! I cannot tell whether this would have had a strong effect on the practice of Indian martial arts - most of the descriptions of Indian martial arts from this period that I have describe sticks being used instead of swords, so technically the Arms Act would not have affected that practice. As you say though, it may have had an indirect effect.
@@scholagladiatoria I'm sorry to bust your bubble but Kalaripayattu was banned bcz of its usage of weapons not sticks..kalari is a warrior martial art used for warfare,it threatened colonialists' existence.British never encouraged manufacturing our own products let alone practicing a martial art.
@@scholagladiatoria I have asked some lawyers and I found out an interesting thing, It is virtually impossible for people like me to practice martial arts which are specifically sword related. Now this sentence seems a bit confusing so allow me to explain: Not a lot of ultra rich people want to indulge into sword related martial arts practices, so most of the students come from middle class or sub middle class backgrounds which obviously means they have other jobs to do, some go to work, some have businesses, or other things like that. Indian arms acts states that you can't buy sharp swords or carry swords in public (Exceptions are religious activities). For firearms, at least you can get licenses. I have a firearm license cause I practice it as a sport. You might also attain a firearms license for self-defense, I don't think there is something like that with swords, swords licenses are only issued to Martial arts school and related people, so you have to become an ace sword art practitioner to use real swords. Now of course you can buy those cheap wall hangers, but what's the point in that. I think that due to the combination of these factors, the sword based martial arts might have become unpopular and people lost interest in them, leading to a sort of death. I mentioned virtually impossible because there are so many legal complications that people who even want to do this, give up on their hopes.
@@scholagladiatoria also lets not forget that large parts of india were governed by independent Indian Kingdoms so even if the Indian Arms Act of 1878 did suppress practice of Indian martial arts, there were plenty of kingdoms where so called secret martial arts would have continued to flourish in safe havens, and yet there still appears to be no sign of of these mythical martial arts. There were several powerful independent Sikh kingdoms as well such as Patiala, Faridkot, Jind etc. Just sounds like con artists borrowing a plot from a cheesy Kung Fu movie and claiming to have discovered some lost arts that only they have access too 😆
@@mahaveerrecords4455 There is Shastar Vidiya taught by Nidar Singh Nihang. When we mean martial arts in India we are really talking about combative arts for battlefields etc. Since warfare changed and moved away from swords towards the late 19th century. Learning how to use a sword well was becoming more scarce. Plus this art was suppressed by the laws. Gatka was only allowed to be practiced openly which was a exhibitionist art. As for martial arts in terms of combat sports India was a wrestling culture so wrestling styles like Kushti etc. were the combat sports of India at the time. India produced world class wrestlers in the 19th and early 20th century periods. This was not banned by British rule as it was unarmed and thus it was allowed to prosper. Also yes while stick fighting was used to practice sparring and drills etc. It’s a poor substitute for a sword believe me. The shape of the sword (curved) compared to a stick feels very different. So while you can train timing and angles, once you switch to an actual sword, the shape, feel and weight of the weapon changes everything. So training with sticks that are straight would give you a false sense of confidence on how to use a sword. Hence why these bans would stick have a major effect on the arts. Also hunting was the real test getting used to killing, cutting wild animals of all kinds with a sword or shooting them is what gets you true cutting and killing experience. Also the jungle is similar to the battlefield in a lot of ways as there are many factors to consider. A tiger could jump out of a bush from no where and knock you to the ground and kill you for example, so you really need situational awareness as you would on the battlefield.
Very true, the martial art was not banned but the people wo used it for freedom fighting were banned. But the people who were not a part of the army and still practiced it, attracted suspicion. My great-grandfather ran an Akhada in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It was forced closed by the British as it was rumored that some freedom fighters hid there and made bombs. Groups who claim these things omit the fact that British prevented a mutiny and did not try to ban a Martial Art. :-)
Jay Khandwala I think this is the actual truth which both sides are trying to twist. The British obviously allowed and encouraged the Indian soldiers in the British Army to practise their martial arts. But they definitely tried to prevent the civilians from doing it, especially after the Freedom movement gained ground. Maybe they allowed it in the early to mid 18th century when no such freedom movement had started.
Sorry, I don't know anything about the History of India since before the british, but, that's exactly what I thought might have happened. Maybe at some point in history and region in India, some martial practice was banned in order to prevent the practice to be used against the british army during a revelion. And, no doubt british officers would appreciate to have good local swordsmen under their command.
Jay Khandwala - "Prevented a mutiny" !?!?! So original, indigenous, native people who want to be free of unjust, foreign tyrrant, imperialist, occupying, oppressive, subjugating rulers, and who want to rule themselves are somehow 'mutinous' ??? ["Yes sir! Yes sir! Three bags full sir!"]
I agree that the British military encourage martial art among people's classify as " martial race" who were able to serve as soldier and specially loyal to the Britishs . But the real khalsa Sikh nihang army ( not the regular mixed troops of the Punjab kingdom) were largely destroyed and then hunted down by the British until they were exterminate or submit . Some groups renounced carriing weapon and matial art and a small number of nihangs survived and maintain the nihang traditions around Nander in Marashtra then came back much later when the British autority relax the rules and eventually permit them to carry swords . So you are right but read also about Akaly nihangs: The real Sikh army.
In 1804, the British banned Kalaripayattu in Kerala in response to the Kottayathu War, a rebellion against British rule in Kerala lead by the Keralite king Pazhassi Raja. The ban came into effect shortly after Pazhassi Raja's death on November 30th, 1805, resulting in the closure of most of the major kalari training grounds in Kerala. Following the ban, many Keralite gurukkals of Kalaripayattu resisted the ban and continued to teach Kalaripayattu to their students in secret. Gurukkals such as Kottakkal Kanaran Gurukkal, Kovilkandi Kelu Kurup Gurukkal and Maroli Ramunni Gurukkal, learned and preserved the martial art for posterity and were responsible for preserving Kalaripayattu into the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as sparking the revival of Kalaripayattu in Kerala in the 1920s.
+Daric In fencing I have a move I call the Dhalsim technique. It hides my reach and when they try to retreat my attack keeps coming. Though it has nothing to do with real Indian swordsmanship.
+Daric I'm a proud Tekken advocate (up to 5, where I feel it reached its zenith), but used to go along to a SF tournament in my local craft beer pub. Entry was the cost of a pint, one could choose any pint of their own brews free, get to play on a big screen and there was great finger food to boot. I always played Dhalsim (Ultra SF IV), and spammed long range attacks, generally playing somewhat strategically, in the low ranks, but if I got further than the fourth match I just spun the left analog stick semi-randomly (I knew which movement would ideally do what, but never really got the hand movements down nicely. They feel so foreign) mashing a few select buttons. This made me teleport incessantly, occasionally sending out fireballs and almost unerringly Yoga Catastrophe when it was ready. I got to the semifinals twice with this tactic against fancy cancel-moving whizzkids
In USA all people could think of when they heard about India was street fighter and "Yoga Fire." Now it's Apu on the Simpsons. Y'all know there are like, famous Indian writers and scientists too, right?
ryan chatterjee Famous Indians in every field from spirituality, philosophy, yoga, altruism, science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, technology, literature, commerce, industry, politics, war, to name just some
I am from Kerala, where Kalaripayattu originated. And it was during the war between British and Keralavarma Pazhassi Raja that British banned Kalaripayattu. Because Nair warriors and Ravuthar warriors practiced Kalaripayattu. And by banning they could not properly teach their children Kalaripayattu. That's the story I have heard. And you told about research, unfortunately British didn't not document all the things that they have done, I mean, British have smashed thumbs of many weavers, and no British have ever wrote about it. And there are many such examples throughout India not just Kerala. And many history of Kerala is not actually written, stories are shared by generations orally. And some Histories which were written, many of them were destroyed by the British. So when you researched you might have not got the full story. So I love this topic and I am starting research about this, and if and when I get some valueable information, I will share. And if you think we Indians hate British for what they have done to us, No we don't hate British, atleast not alot of people. We forgive, but not forget! Those times are over, NOW we all need to make this place a better place to live for all!
If you need help reading Indian sources in Hindi and such, or any other Indian language I can help you find people over here. You actually make a lot of good points about Indian martial arts (especially the lack of point use etc.) which people would love to overlook from shear obstinacy. Cheers from India.
I don't know , if indians martial arts was banned; but after 1857 British banned the use and holding of weapons for indians. Many weapons which were past downed in families were confiscated and a large part of armed population was reduced. This also affected various cultures in parts of india where weapons were a part of day to day life and possess a strong martial culture
Probably just mimicking how Karate and other Japanese martial arts were promoted in US. Never mind that variety of jiu jitsu schools were practiced all over the islands openly by probably hundreds of thousands of people and by the end of 19th century Judo was practiced en mass all over the country BECAUSE it's training method proven a better combat preparation in actual test combat held by Tokyo police. Just a marketing trick, same as BJJ claiming that founder was some sickle weakling when faced Kimura, while in fact he was a tough experienced fighter that gave up 10-20lb to Kimura if not less. Reality is that things that work work better for strong, fast young people and whole mysticism of it is a pile of garbage.
scholagladiatoria i practise shastarvidya/gatka and have been learning for six years. I was thought in the Ranjit Akhara the main akhara of the Sikhs which has a direct lineage from the Gurus. If you look from the perspective of the Sikhs of Punjab it is obvious that the british had a huge impact on the art. After the Anglo Sikh Wars, the sikhs of punjab were disarmed so that they couldnt fight back as they did. It wasnt only the martial art but every aspect was affected. Martial arts werent banned but it was a sort of assimilation, so much that after 1857 most sikhs didnt believe their martial arts would survive. As Sikh scholar Giani Gian Singh said in Twarikh Guru Khalsa that every house in punjab had shields, lances, swords, muskets, and bows. Nowadays you dont see many sikhs carrying the full 3 foot sword and that is because of the influence of the british.
Because you don't care for truth or evidence, but just believe what you want to believe, you could learn for a hundred years in any akhara and not learn a single thing. Let me help you. You think this way and make up, pick and choose historical 'facts' because you were taught and brought up in an environment full of lies. Sikhs didn't save Hindus. Sikhs didn't bring down the Mughal empire. Sikhs didn't all carry 3-foot swords around (they carried kard knives originally). Take the red pill and stop wasting your life. The truth is a juggernaut and all liars will be crushed under its wheels. No brownie points from gods or gurus.
Indian weaponry were amazing. just look at all kinds of design of killing tools. Seriously when i was a kid my impression about Indians was: these people must practice everyday and know all the creative way of killing people. until later i have a few India friends....and all they talk about is peace and mercy, and put curry on everything they eat. i was so so so disappointing.
Qiang Luo With the increasing reliance on guns and bombs, and vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine in modern warfare, traditional martial arts, with their traditional weapons, horsemanship, unarmed combat techniques, etc., were considered archaic and fell out of favour by those who wished to modernise. A similar move to modernise happened in Japan around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century by the then Japanese Emperor and similarly China with Mao and the Cultural Revolution where Mao wanted to forcibly destroy Chinese martial arts causing many martial arts masters to flee mainland China. 'Ahimsa' = non-violence (in thought, word and deed) is a concept in Indian dharmic religions (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.). Do you understand now bro?
Qiang Luo They were good fighters but Gandhi made them coward peace lovers so they dont fight and accept and smiles towards whoever kicks them....they just need to be awakened from their deep sleep...
From all I can see online, the specific complaint is that after the British East India Company took control of Malabar from Tippu Sultan in 1792, they faced continued minor resistance and supposedly banned the practice of kalaripayat - but if that is the case, you'd have to check back for some sort of announcement to the effect, because I can't find any trace of it. Indeed, I can't find any source online that mentions the ban before the mid 2000s.
+Bobby Dee I did some digging yesterday and I couldn't find contemporary digitized source material. My best guess is to go to British Library archives in London and using Mark I eyeball. And there is lot of stuff there spanning years 1792-1804 when supposed bans happened. Any volunteers? :)
As an Indian, I think it would not make much sense for the British to ban any Indian martial art. As far as I know all battles from 1757 were won or lost based on military tactics (including betrayal) and not because of the way people fought. Also, a lot of rebellions resulted from the british enforcing or banning something. this kind of a thing would definitely have caused one as you are pushing people who are both capable and willing to fight
People have already pointed this out, but this sort of myth pervades most martial arts, it seems. Practitioners of Hwa Rang Do, an obscure Korean art, claim that the Japanese restricted its practice to a solitary monk until two brothers broke the rules to not only both be taught it, but to relocate their master amid the war in the '50's. Then there is Capoeira, purportedly practiced by slaves in Brazil in the guise of folk dancing. The facts of the matter might not ever be known fully, but the claims remain dubious at best.
I think that it's that people want to suggest that it's taboo, in order to try and attract people to it. Like the whole Ninjitsu garbage. There's also the desire to try and heighten the impression of oppression, by the conquerors.
Hi Matt! Big fan of yours. During Malabar rebellion I have heard that people's weapons were taken away. Supposedly high walls were banned and all private practitioners were monitored. Have you read accounts of Malabar Rebellion.
I have come across your point that britts not banned Indian martial arts. That’s not true though. My ancestors(warrior clan Thevar) own the martial arts school in Madurai TN side. But have to move to Marathas ruling Tanjore side Bcs of East India company’s indirect policy, martial arts schools and practice were banned, even in temple functions. All happened after when EIC solders with rifles couldn’t win against Pulithevan whose army fights only with swords and spears. They’ve blunted rifle volleys get near them cut them all in 3 initial wars from 1755 to 60. After 1767 pulithevan lost and taken over by EIC subedar Yosuf Khan, nearly all schools were banned by britts controlled areas under colonal Heron. So my ancestors have to move towards Tanjore where at least they can practice martial arts. After 1800 ban implemented to all princely states (except for Sikhs) too. Britts afraid of rebellion if they taken sword from Sikhs. Also If you want to wear sword you have to be sepoy or minimum should have to have chieftain status to hold. These rules were not mentioned in England Bcs till 1857 it was EIC that made law for India not UK law makers. So you won’t find it anywhere in writing or mentioning. Britts never ever accepted that they looted, rapped or oppressed India and Indians. It’s the ppl we remember those bloody history.
Matt, what's your stance on Kalaripayattu claiming to be the oldest martial art? Some claims even make it out to be the ancestor of Chinese and Japanese MAs.
+Marc Ritz All martial arts are the same, whether it's wrestling, throwing spears or shooting arrows. The first humans to invent such things were not even homo sapiens sapiens :-)
Could you explain the Indian sword in your right hand ? its structure, quality of blade, the purpose behind its curve, what is that metal under the handle of this sword ? is it designed for single hand or both hands? why it is pointed on the tip and not flat? how can you say if an Indian curved tulwar is balanced or not?
There might be some sliver of truth in the banning story. British colonial rulers tended to ban organizations involved in anticolonial activities and it might be that some indian martial arts "schools" were banned also. At least that is what superficial look at online sources suggests. Kalaripayattu wikipedia article references to: Luijendijk, D.H. (2005). Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art. Boulder: Paladin Press. ISBN 1-58160-480-7 but I have no access to it and can't verify the source. Probably indian martial arts as a whole were not banned but some organizations or religious sects might have been and the story comes from there.
+Anssi Hakkarainen We also see some Shastar Vidiya writers claiming that the British forbade the practice of weapons in Sikh areas, but again I haven't found evidence for that. Historically it seems like nonsense, because the last Sikh War was in 1849 and by 1857 huge numbers of Sikhs were fighting for the British to squash the massive uprising in Bengal.... The British used Sikh and Gurkha soldiers extensively - they wanted them to serve as soldiers because of their fighting skills. They didn't want to remove those skills from future generations of soldiers.
+scholagladiatoria I think your reasoning is valid regarding practical value of locally trained fighters. It still doesn't exclude repression of some factions which were seen as too difficult to deal with. And it is probably historical hindsight to think that the British were banning martial arts when they were banning or suppressing political or religious faction. Even if the end result was decline of one or more martial arts traditions. I see years 1793 and 1804 mentioned a lot regarding supposed ban of Kalaripayattu in Kerala. If its true then there should be historical sources confirming it as its said to be "banned by law". Any good links to online sources for British colonial law records?
Indian martial arts went into obscurity because the independent powers that patronised them themselves became subjugated. Native states and empires were broken up into becoming part of the new polity. Their armies were disbanded and no longer allowed to be retained. Consequently their methods of warfare slowly died out. The art of the rhumal and binnot which were specialities of the thugs were completely eliminated by Col. Sleeman. The Bahutor tribe who specialised in breaking arms was declared a criminal tribe. Civilians were no longer allowed to carry swords and such other weaponry. Fari gatka, etc were just show oriented exibition arts and were performed for exercise or exhibition not war. And the story could go on. Just my view from 21st century India.
thanks for the insight . this is quite interesting , being an indian from punjab myself i've seen pictures of indian's made to crawl in presence of british soldiers. which makes me think why would they allow a martial art to be practiced or even the event like jallian walla bagh where sikhs and hindu's were massacred for just gathering on the event of baisakhi festival. i currently dont have any written sources but , i did saw the pictures of the indians crawling. if i find them i will post em here
Yes, like burning widows or killing peoples for their faith (google for Sikh martyrs). And the biggest part of India though under British rule stayed autonomous under their local rulers.
Substandard Gamer Kiba Maybe the British did ban "many things". I'm certainly not a supporter of imperialism. However scholagladiatoria is not saying that "Many things" were not banned. All he is saying is that he cannot see any evidence for the British banning the practising of Indian martial arts.
Banning something makes it more controversial so I think that is why they say that, because who doesn't like the romantic notion of rediscovering a 'lost art'
This is an excellent video. CORRECT Contrary to popular belief, the British didn't have time to rule directly. Even the British Indian Army served mostly overseas. (like the US Marine Corps). The British delegated India Empire to various Indian Princes (Nawabs and Maharaja), who kept a private local army to keep order. They were armed by the British up to small artillery and even armored cars. Today, Indian nationalists writers make up lies about the British Raj. (In India 🇮🇳 but not in Bangladesh, Nepal or Pakistan)
Hello,Matt. I want to ask you two questions. What is the differences between medieval armingsword and renaissance cut and thrust sword or side sword? And also,from the swordsmanship,what is the differences between medieval armingswird and renaissance cut and thrust sword or side sword?They are both one handed sword in western Europe
Not being British, I noticed that there was a certain "blaming the British" for the demise of Indian culture and loss of historical information. When I asked for examples none were given when I suggest there might other reasons like lack of systemic record keeping, lack of open information in society etc the idea wasn't welcomed. So seems to be a cultural notion that sneaky Britain raped India and stole everything.
+Shannon Lodge I only know a bit about early India, but the idea that there was a lack of record keeping doesn't really make sense. There seems to be a tradition of fastidious record keeping in terms of both state matters and a tradition of funereal biographies dating back at least to the Mauryan empire. The idea of a lack of openness about information also doesn't make sense (again, in early Indian history at least,) as most governments for most of history have been rather cagey, and we still know plenty of stuff about them, and in India's case Ashoka was actually well-more forthcoming that most other emperors in the world, with some of his pillar-proclamations basically just saying "hey so there are these kings way into the West here are their names. Just, helpful info about the world." Also if you want to talk about British imperialism getting in the way of Indian history, there's actually a lot of ways for them to do it without committing any flagrant or intentional act of censorship. All that really needs to happen is for their investigations to be missing cultural context, and for the conclusions of those investigations to eventually be accepted by mainstream Indians after a few generations, which is in fact what we see. Early European theories of Eastern Despotism (that is, a despot controlling irrigation, and by doing so controlling all of society,) have stuck around until the 20th century, and it's only relatively recently that this theory has been shown to be basically completely untrue, with the various nations of India having all the complicated relationships between landlords and clans and monarchs that one would expect. There's also this idea of a fundamental caste system that remains stable and clear throughout Hindu India's history (a product of colonialist talking almost exclusively with brahmans when it came to history), which has also been demonstrably false, with the early Nanda dynasty (and many others, I've heard) coming from the shudra, or roughly laborer, caste, not the kshatriya caste as is supposed to be custom. So, yeah, British colonial rule did a number on Indian history, more by grossly misinterpreting and distorting things than by having book burnings or the like, and most likely these distortions aren't really intentional so much as clumsy and myopic.
+Thomas Hightower maybe in certain parts of India at certain periods however I was not referring a registry of births, deaths and marriages. Also, it only takes periods of chaos for records to be lost. I think you would concede that is the value of a centralised library system. Also from my experience of India it ends to be chaotic by nature.
As Orwell once observed, an empire is a commercial venture. The English entered India first as traders and then as invaders. Trade got them a foothold into the country , and then realising how weak it was, the English gradually took control until they ruled the subcontinent. They destroyed native agriculture to grow commercial crops that could be exported profitably. The famines and mass unemployment that followed ruined India. The profits were naturally repatriated to Mother England. India's wealth attracted the English. After helping themselves , and mismanaging the economy to collapse they left. When they left, India's poverty ( like its wealth before) was proverbial.
+Raj Ray well the same could be said about the Moghul invasion. Difference was, premise was different. Under the British Empire you were allowed to become independent and remain in the commonwealth of nations. Under the Moghul rule you all would have put to the sword. If we take the Orissa famine, the reason behind British non-interference is they (colonial governor in Calcutta) deemed that interfering would cause a unnatural act as economy like nature should be left to it own natural cycles. Aid was finally brought (by an Englishman who disagreed with the governor economic paradigm), unfortunately too little too late. But where were the farmer's silos and warehouse? When I visited Orissa a few years ago I observed that nothing much had changed for the plight of the agricultural people even under independent rule
+Shannon Lodge Both statements are incorrect. The British empire did not continence independence. Read up American history a bit. Under Moghul rule India was richer than Western Europe, which is why it was invaded by England. And most rulers were exemplary for the times. Akbar set the standard for tolerance, at a time when Europe was burning People for religious reasons. The British looted the sub continent bare. Their downfall as a nation dates to the time they left.
This reminds me of Sir Roderick Ponce von Fontlebottom the Magnificent Bastard in Jade Empire; his answer to being challenged to a martial arts duel is to simply draw his blunderbuss and shoot the challenger point blank :D
cutting a lemon(invisible from outside) placed in a clay pot such that one half would remain in pot and the other half would fall outside, cutting the clay pot also.Kindly research about poligars a book by british officer mentions that the poligar carried long greek style phalanx like staff and fought in a unique style.
Maybe, but it's not actually that far out of character either. If I recall correctly (possibly from Mark Rector's book), the British basically outlawed Highland swordsmanship outside of the British military. By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the Saber and Broadsword Manuals were being written because they had to be. Scots no longer had a base of civilian broadsword training for use in their own ancestral weaponry.
+Jeff Acheson This is sort of using one myth to explain another myth :-) The Highland clearances were a thing, but there were no laws banning the practice of fencing in Scotland. Swordsmanship in Scotland continued.
+scholagladiatoria The highland clearance was uper class clansmen again they retainers.We speak here about the repression of the Jacobite rebellion and the extermination of the Scottish warriors hostile to the English ,the lowland and the Protestant highlanders. So the military useful highland tradition survived perfectly in the Highland regiments of the British army.
Mr. Easton, how is it that you can bring up a simple point of discussion and cause such a furor on the interwebs? Do you have secret power or something?
Hey Matt, InRangeTV did a video about hand weapons in World War one trench raids and discussed if a Club, a Trench Knife or a Spade are more effective then a Bajonet on a Rifle in a cose combat situation. The trench knifes also where often just a metal spikes with a handguards and they gave the point thaat this would make it easier to cut through multiple layers of Winter clothing then with a reglar blade. InRangeTV and forgotten weapons are really good when it comes to firearms but they also dont know alot about hand to hand combat, maybe you (or the commenters) can look deeper into it
That would be cool. I think some work on fighting with a carbine and a Bowie knife (which Matt talked about a while ago) would be another good area for collaboration. Regarding the WWI weapons video, I thought FW did a decent job of explaining the improvised weapons and issued knives/daggers, but they didn't really do the rifle/bayonet justice. This is likely because, by their own admission, they are not hardcore martial artists. I don't know if Matt does a lot of bayonet fencing, but if FW teamed up with someone who did, and had enough protective equipment to try it at combat speeds, that would be very illustrative.
MisdirectedSasha They did said that the problems in trenches were the reason bajonets got shorter later, but i cant imagine that this would change the lot, the Kar98 didnt changed a lot during the wars and was still about the same size. I am interested if it would be really that easy to grab a carbine poked at you by jjust moving sideways, because that is hard to do with a spear. Also Karl smacks Ians hand with the english E-Tool stick and i cant imagine that a fight would work this way. Karl commented that he would like to work together with someone that has an idea about HEMA
9 ปีที่แล้ว
ill ask, as i often do, if you have come across of references of british soldiers in malaya and their view of indigenous martial arts there?
Hey Matt, I do FMA (in Germany). There are a lot of people sayin the same about the spanish banning fma in the filipines while they ruled the countrie. Do you know something about it? It's a different countrie but I'm curious ;). I think it's the same with capoeira, that's why it looks so dancy. Thx and greetings from Germany
+Julian Fu A lot of people have asked this and given educated answers - it seems also to be a myth. If there were any attempts to ban weapon practice in the region then they clearly didn't work. But there doesn't seem to be any real evidence for such restrictions.
+scholagladiatoria There are sources but these are already English translations of Spanish books, that the Spanish on occasion did ban sharps but this was only a single village during certain times. I've also only read about this happening during the later half of the 19th century. There are many more documented cases of the Spanish training native militias. We know that by the 19th century, the Spanish used troops from different parts of the Philippines to act as the police and militia. These native troops were armed and were trained in Spanish saber techniques. Now one thing I've heard is that Spanish military saber techniques (and I've seen one manual) was based on the British training method. Matt do you know of any resources that might illustrate that connection?
+scholagladiatoria The proof is actually in the art itself. I'm Filipino and most if not all our history is oral or in this case of martial arts expressed through body movement. I come from a Floro Villabrille lineage in Filipino Martial Arts and part of the martial art is to pass down the history. My footwork drills are literally "dances" to hide the true nature of why we moved like that. We are at our nature a bladed martial art. If the stick was JUST a training tool to simulate blades and there were no bans on bladed weapons, then why did the stick get chosen over the blade? Why carry a stick around when you can carry a barong for example and not get arrested for it? That's why the Moros in the south didn't have any "stick work" in their martial arts. They were never colonized and therefore kept their bladed martial arts "pure". The main reason why we pass down history in my martial art is to get a better understanding of the martial art and therefore excel in it. National pride should never be the main focus.
Matt - I enjoyed this. I have a question that is at a slight tangent. In your Historical research what have you come across with respect to Chinese martial arts and swordsmanship. Obviously British military presence was not as big in China as it was in India, but it certainly existed. Most stories of Chinese martial arts of the 19th and early 20th century that I know of come from the Chinese perspective. I'm sure I'd not be the only one interested in stories from the British perspective.
I don't know about Indian martial arts but on October 6, 1818, Governor Robert Brownrigg banned martial arts in Sri Lanka via the government gazette after brutally suppressing an uprising.
Actually, I have my own question regarding Indian Martial Arts that every time I ask, nobody answers. Was the katar ever used as parrying companion weapon (like rapier and dagger) to other weapons like the tulwar, khanda or pata? I remember having a freestyle spar and experimented with a military sabre and katar (I know, it's weird), and the katar felt pretty good as a parrying weapon. So again I'm curious if teaching or using a katar as an offhand to other weapons is or were taught in Indian Martial Arts?
There was a weapon ban after the Bengal rebellion. I think there are records of entire village of hunters who did not surrender their weapons being slaughtered.
+Dennis Bauer That's not how sources work. People generally don't spend a lot of time writing down things that DIDN'T happen. What you do is what Matt has done: look for sources that say something DID happen, and if there are none to be found, it probably didn't.
+Dennis Bauer There are dozens of sources that run contrary to these claims published in the book I refer to in this video - Swordsmen of the British Empire, but D A Kinsley, from Lulu Publishing.
Doc Eon I did not want Matt to prove it, i just wanted to know in which books he came across these bits of info, i am no expert, i wouldn't know which books to go for. Thanks for the info Mr. Easton
The weapon in the left hand seems like an inferior weapon as it restricts the use of the wrist, unlike a longsword or saber, though I don't know its intended use.
PIYUSH JAISWAL you're right, I learned kalaripayyattu from my family and it's true that the British outlawed it. Just an other Pomme trying to defend his country.
It would've been very difficult to ban such in an Eastern society at the time. Esstern martial systems are heavily tied to their spirituality/rituals medicine, dances, etc. They are holistic systems. Which pretty much means that messing with one part of an art affects all the other parts. Even if the British had tried I suspect it wouldn't have woeked.
I'm from India, and has trained in kalari. I can assure you there was no ban😂😂😂and to call it dangerous is funny, as the current practices have deviated from actual combat to demonstration excercise and bullshido, just to make claims like "mother of all martial arts", it dwells more on plains of spirituality than that of combative arts. Simply put kalari is the yoga of martial arts.(and yes yoga too is mainly propaganda and bullshido now)
Not a sword but sword-related: the practice of using indian clubs transferred from Indians to the British. Any sources for approx. when this happened, Matt?
You can also find a proof in forest around mutiny memorial delhi. There are signs of an akhada and martial art site, locals say brtishers banned them in 18th century.
I also have heard, but been unable to substantiate, that Cambodian martial arts were banned around WWII. It's a fairly popular claim in a number of countries.
probably because in a lot colonial situations there are cases where unruly local populations were discouraged or banned from learning martial arts etc as a check against rebellion, we see this in brazil the philipines, and also in okinawa when the japanese from the home islands invaded and occupied the place.. supposedly being the reason why karate/ kobudo uses so many unconventional weapons such as hoes, oars, the sickle (one in each hand as opposed to only one as shown in paulus hector mayer)
yup, i did, i just figure it's generally assumed that wherever colonial forces go, they disarms the locals and ban their regional martial art hence why people would think it happened in india
+elgostine That's an urban myth though. In effective colonialism you conquer a place and the immediately use the skills of the conquered. You don't want to get rid of their skills. Hence the Sikhs were finally brought under British control in 1849 and by 1857 were fighting in the front ranks of the British Army to defeat the rebellious Bengal Army, very effectively. The Sikhs and the Gurkhas essentially won the Indian Mutiny for the British.
As always, nice video keep em comming. p.s for your next 5 questions you do, I want to see you show a picture of you with hair on your head for laughs.
Yesterday I mused about which would be your weapons of choice for a zombie apocalypse. I settled on a warhammer, a bowie knife, a military sabre and a bow...
Hmm, wikipedia currently says "The British colonial government banned kalaripayat in 1804 in response to a series of revolts" and in support cites as a source "Luijendijk, D.H. (2005). Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art. Boulder: Paladin Press. ISBN 1-58160-480-7". Unfortunately that work doesn't seem to be online so I can't confirm that it actually says that or what evidence it gives. If that book exists and makes that claim, it might be possible to trace where this notion comes from. The same article also notes what you said, though, that "traditional fighting systems persisted, sometimes even under the patronage of enthusiastic British spectators". Maybe there was a temporary, regional ban under a certain local government?
+HebaruSan Interesting, thanks. I'll try to see if I can get to the bottom of that. If there was some kind of limited-regional ban, I'd be interested to see the wording of it, because clearly, as stated, traditional martial arts such as gatka and wrestling continued.
Interesting. I remember a literature class at university called 'Visions of India' I+II. First part was about books written by British authors (e.g. Paul Scott), second part included post-colonial writings by the Indians themselves (e.g. Rushdie). I cannot recall a ban of martial arts mentioned anywhere. :-)
This is a claim in many martial arts and there is rarely any evidence to support it. I think it is just salesmanship which is repeated for so long it becomes truth in the minds of its practitioners. "This martial art was so effective it was banned." If that were the case don't you think the colonizing armies would have actually learned it? wouldn't there be a record? It just doesn't sell as many memberships to teach the martial practice of the losing side I guess, so it has to be talked up like a used car.
To all sword fans: The British Army built their great Empire by their excellent musket/ rifle / cannon drill. The ottoman won by canon firepower The Mughals won by canon/ musket firepower Even the Japanese katana sword was obsolete as soon as the Portuguese came in the 15th century with flintlocks and musket. The sword was a secondary weapon, an officers badge of honor. Gun 🔫 is king.
They also created famine and forced weapon by back programs and if ppl wouldnt comply theree werr severe punishments would like. Me to get you the refrence its been awhile since ilooked up the document im sure ican find it and there many incidents where especially the purotaan khalsa akali nihangs who werre extermly pursued where there numbers dwindled doen to memory of a few hundred
This reminds me of the video where you state the British (or Europeans) had a low opinion of Chinese Kung Fu or Chinese Boxing because they didn't think it was better than European boxing. I liked how you pointed out that before the rules limited what could be done in the ring they used to kick a lot, both that and this are very interesting videos.
there is a correction here the mardani khel mainly (fencing with all this lemon cutting etc ) is not a battle field martial arts this are amusement thing battle field talims were disbanded by the brits that wat the stories are here in the deccan of india after balwant fhlake or phalke did his revolt
Helo Jhon Snow. I am from India and also a history student. I think you should have mention your sources. Don't be a advocate to the mistakes made by your grandparents who looted India.
So many mistaken British rule in Indian. India come under British rule part by part and step by step. They started as business house then tex collector for native governments then small garrison to protect there toll houses then missionary army for local ruler then ruler directly and indirectly. warrior casts like Pathan, Baloch, Rajput, Sikh, Dogra, Gorkha served British and even fight native for them so no issue to ban any art.
Mat I let me tell you one thing that is in India during the British rule almost a decade before the war there are said to be documents that says that the high ranking officers were disregarding many orders that came from England and started banning martial arts and other activities that they were not supposed to do because reasons like their forces being stretched thin and other factors so control over foreign forces was difficult. So can you look into it further more because I remember reading something like that was the reason behind England loosing its grip over India. Because this thing has been told to us all our lives so it will be so great to know the truth and as the moto of my country is "Satyamev Jayate"
+scholagladiatoria Matt, does your research cover the Company Raj as well? Don't doubt you actually, but I can fully imagine the Company having banned it at some point, before realising it was more useful to have skilled warriors. I would also pretty much expect it to be have been banned locally and during certain periods. Like during and in the wake of the Sepoy Rebellion. Simply because this is the way colonies were ruled all the time and everywhere...
In the year 1792 the British had established their supremacy over Malabar, North Kerala. The new rulers banned Kalaripayattu in 1793 after suppressing a local uprising. In 1804 the British authorities passed an order that those who concealed weapons or defied the ban on carrying arms would be deported for life. The same measures were resorted to in quelling an uprising in Travancore in Southern Kerala. The British successfully brought this traditional military system to an end by banning it completely. However, a band of devoted followers secretly practiced this martial art and imparted training in it so that it could be preserved for the sake of posterity.
I'm guessing that you saw a video claiming that the traditional Indian martial arts (I cant remember the correct names) are the oldest and most superior martial arts.. when I saw that i was actually disappointed at how much traction it was gaining in a time where you can learn practically all there is to learn on a topic any time you want to with a simple google search
scholagladiatoria it truly upsets me that there is so much misinformation and so many people that spout nonsense when it comes to martial arts, both in history and in the modern age.
Maybe British sources don't mention banning martial arts, but Indian ones do? Or perhaps the British bans were implemented in the 18th century? It seems plausible that British sources might be less sensitive to the repressive influence of the British presence than the Indians were. I'd be interested to learn more about the basis for claims that Indian martial arts were repressed or restricted during British rule.
+Thisold Hatte If there were any bans, then we have to question why all British sources talk openly about Indian martial arts in positive terms. It's very clear from the British sources that India martial arts were still being practiced everywhere and that the British both admired and sought to recruit these fighters as soldiers!
scholagladiatoria Thats true, but is it not possible that there were limited or specific restrictions on martial arts practices? For instance on a type of martial art? or perhaps the closing of particular schools, which were perhaps known to be antagonistic toward colonial rule? P.S. I posted my comment before finishing the video and so missed the part where you invited people familiar with Indian sources to contribute anything you might be missing by studying British sources.
+Thisold Hatte It does seem plausible that 'banned people using martial arts against the British Empire' got translated into 'banned people using martial arts...' The claim makes a lot of sense once you add '...against the British Empire'.
Sounds in line with the rest of SE Asia, the use of bamboo sticks, etc. to practice, to date, where the British generally did use, hire or work with indian armies inclusive of pakistan, the spanish did ban martial arts in philippines and the japanese did in where they conquered..
The 1857 rebellion resulted in "martial race" classifications, such that certain groups were effectively excluded from military service. The 1878 Indian Arms Act mandated licenses for making or carrying arms (incl. daggers, swords, spears and bows). Perhaps nothing was explicitly banned. Just discouraged through economic and legal pressures.
Nelumbo Nucifera No British released shoot at sight orders for nihangs ( Sikh warriors ) who were main practitioners
"Perhaps nothing was explicitly banned"
Nope, I have just watched some indians history video about it and they were explecity banned, anyone who was seen with any of those weapons or was keep practicing any way of fighting martial art was directly sended to jail. In fact, after the indians got their independence there was nobody to who remebered how to use their martial arts, it was thanks to some history records that the indians could brought back their martiala arts.
Isn't that technically what it means to be "banned under British administered territories" but patronized in Princely states. Since by end of 1857 , all those princely states had now considered queen Victoria as their empress?
@@capscaps04 well, there had to be a historical document describing such a ban, similar to the 1878 Indian Arms Act. And they produced it as evidence in that Indian “history” video you mentioned, right? Right?..
@@violentfox th-cam.com/video/9jD3NT6cutI/w-d-xo.html
Watch it.
The main reason why they banned is because indian martial arts and the buildings they used to practice it was were the indians warriors previous to british colonization came from.
They are even videos of how british shot on the street indians who were practitioners of it. Wich is not something hard to believe considering the long history of the british to shot indians on the street without any warning.
But you have to admit, "check out our secret, banned form of combat" sounds a bit sexier than "the British didn't give a fig about what we were doing."
+Nathan Wheatley Thanks Nathan, I think you just solved that mystery.
If someone were to tell me "Oh no! My art is forbidden for being too powerful! If you learned it, you'll become TOO dangerous and badass!", you know what? I just might be gullible enough to pay for lessons!
+Nathan Wheatley Absolutely! Everybody loves a secret deadly killer art that you have to train for 50 years in to get good at.
+Nathan Wheatley Partly, but I'd also think that Indian independence movement and nationalism during/after it played a role. Something similar happened in China with internal vs external styles - ever noticed how internal styles are both supposedly superior and originated in konfucian or taoist china (unlike, say, buddhist Shaolin)?
+Nathan Wheatley Your version might be truer, but you need to up play it into a strength:
"A System So Deadly, Nobody Dared Try To Ban It"
+r. decline HAHAHAHA!!!! Goddamn, son, you just made my day! Genius!!!
Matt, have you ever visited India? I think you should plan a "research expedition" and take us all on vacation with you via the youtube channel.
+Karl Toth ....and get the BBC to pay for it.
gingercore69 The BBC he is talking about is the British Broadcasting Company. Like the British equivalent of ABC (American Broadcastong Company).
Shin-Ya-Kha i know, it was a joke, but thanks for taking the time for an honest answer ñ.ñ
the best thing about the Pata sword is that it looks like you are giving everyone the finger on the most badass way
+davedark27 lol
+scholagladiatoria well it's true.
+scholagladiatoria Is that sword a bit to small for your Hand or is it intended to be a bit tight in the hand?
+Michael Walz Both - it has to be really tight to stay in place. But also it is a tiny bit too small for me.
Check Out These 10 Hot Martial Arts Tips that the British Don't Want You to Know!
+weregecko lol
Its a common belief that The Indian Arms Act of 1878 indirectly suppressed the practice of Indian martial arts. Not sure if its true or not.
Thanks Praveen, that's a very interesting point. I have looked into the Indian Arms Act and it certainly seems to have squashed Indian manufacture and carrying of all kinds of weapons, mostly guns but also swords and other weapons. It even lists bows and spears! I cannot tell whether this would have had a strong effect on the practice of Indian martial arts - most of the descriptions of Indian martial arts from this period that I have describe sticks being used instead of swords, so technically the Arms Act would not have affected that practice. As you say though, it may have had an indirect effect.
@@scholagladiatoria I'm sorry to bust your bubble but Kalaripayattu was banned bcz of its usage of weapons not sticks..kalari is a warrior martial art used for warfare,it threatened colonialists' existence.British never encouraged manufacturing our own products let alone practicing a martial art.
@@scholagladiatoria I have asked some lawyers and I found out an interesting thing, It is virtually impossible for people like me to practice martial arts which are specifically sword related. Now this sentence seems a bit confusing so allow me to explain:
Not a lot of ultra rich people want to indulge into sword related martial arts practices, so most of the students come from middle class or sub middle class backgrounds which obviously means they have other jobs to do, some go to work, some have businesses, or other things like that.
Indian arms acts states that you can't buy sharp swords or carry swords in public (Exceptions are religious activities).
For firearms, at least you can get licenses. I have a firearm license cause I practice it as a sport. You might also attain a firearms license for self-defense, I don't think there is something like that with swords, swords licenses are only issued to Martial arts school and related people, so you have to become an ace sword art practitioner to use real swords.
Now of course you can buy those cheap wall hangers, but what's the point in that.
I think that due to the combination of these factors, the sword based martial arts might have become unpopular and people lost interest in them, leading to a sort of death.
I mentioned virtually impossible because there are so many legal complications that people who even want to do this, give up on their hopes.
@@scholagladiatoria also lets not forget that large parts of india were governed by independent Indian Kingdoms so even if the Indian Arms Act of 1878 did suppress practice of Indian martial arts, there were plenty of kingdoms where so called secret martial arts would have continued to flourish in safe havens, and yet there still appears to be no sign of of these mythical martial arts. There were several powerful independent Sikh kingdoms as well such as Patiala, Faridkot, Jind etc. Just sounds like con artists borrowing a plot from a cheesy Kung Fu movie and claiming to have discovered some lost arts that only they have access too 😆
@@mahaveerrecords4455 There is Shastar Vidiya taught by Nidar Singh Nihang.
When we mean martial arts in India we are really talking about combative arts for battlefields etc. Since warfare changed and moved away from swords towards the late 19th century. Learning how to use a sword well was becoming more scarce. Plus this art was suppressed by the laws. Gatka was only allowed to be practiced openly which was a exhibitionist art.
As for martial arts in terms of combat sports India was a wrestling culture so wrestling styles like Kushti etc. were the combat sports of India at the time. India produced world class wrestlers in the 19th and early 20th century periods. This was not banned by British rule as it was unarmed and thus it was allowed to prosper.
Also yes while stick fighting was used to practice sparring and drills etc. It’s a poor substitute for a sword believe me. The shape of the sword (curved) compared to a stick feels very different. So while you can train timing and angles, once you switch to an actual sword, the shape, feel and weight of the weapon changes everything. So training with sticks that are straight would give you a false sense of confidence on how to use a sword. Hence why these bans would stick have a major effect on the arts.
Also hunting was the real test getting used to killing, cutting wild animals of all kinds with a sword or shooting them is what gets you true cutting and killing experience. Also the jungle is similar to the battlefield in a lot of ways as there are many factors to consider. A tiger could jump out of a bush from no where and knock you to the ground and kill you for example, so you really need situational awareness as you would on the battlefield.
Very true, the martial art was not banned but the people wo used it for freedom fighting were banned. But the people who were not a part of the army and still practiced it, attracted suspicion. My great-grandfather ran an Akhada in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It was forced closed by the British as it was rumored that some freedom fighters hid there and made bombs. Groups who claim these things omit the fact that British prevented a mutiny and did not try to ban a Martial Art. :-)
Avinash Singh
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Jay Khandwala I think this is the actual truth which both sides are trying to twist. The British obviously allowed and encouraged the Indian soldiers in the British Army to practise their martial arts. But they definitely tried to prevent the civilians from doing it, especially after the Freedom movement gained ground.
Maybe they allowed it in the early to mid 18th century when no such freedom movement had started.
Sorry, I don't know anything about the History of India since before the british, but, that's exactly what I thought might have happened.
Maybe at some point in history and region in India, some martial practice was banned in order to prevent the practice to be used against the british army during a revelion.
And, no doubt british officers would appreciate to have good local swordsmen under their command.
Jay Khandwala -
"Prevented a mutiny" !?!?!
So original, indigenous, native people who want to be free of unjust, foreign tyrrant, imperialist, occupying, oppressive, subjugating rulers, and who want to rule themselves are somehow 'mutinous' ???
["Yes sir! Yes sir! Three bags full sir!"]
Truth
From the perspective of the ruler that is indeed mutinous. But not necessarily treacherous. ;)
"To cut a long story short..." the greatest sword feat possible for our friend Matt Easton.
@Colin Cleveland Brillant.
I agree that the British military encourage martial art among people's classify as " martial race" who were able to serve as soldier and specially loyal to the Britishs . But the real khalsa Sikh nihang army ( not the regular mixed troops of the Punjab kingdom) were largely destroyed and then hunted down by the British until they were exterminate or submit . Some groups renounced carriing weapon and matial art and a small number of nihangs survived and maintain the nihang traditions around Nander in Marashtra then came back much later when the British autority relax the rules and eventually permit them to carry swords . So you are right but read also about Akaly nihangs: The real Sikh army.
You don't know about that ok I am an Indian I know bhow the British use to imprison the people practice ing martial art
In 1804, the British banned Kalaripayattu in Kerala in response to the Kottayathu War, a rebellion against British rule in Kerala lead by the Keralite king Pazhassi Raja. The ban came into effect shortly after Pazhassi Raja's death on November 30th, 1805, resulting in the closure of most of the major kalari training grounds in Kerala. Following the ban, many Keralite gurukkals of Kalaripayattu resisted the ban and continued to teach Kalaripayattu to their students in secret. Gurukkals such as Kottakkal Kanaran Gurukkal, Kovilkandi Kelu Kurup Gurukkal and Maroli Ramunni Gurukkal, learned and preserved the martial art for posterity and were responsible for preserving Kalaripayattu into the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as sparking the revival of Kalaripayattu in Kerala in the 1920s.
So the British underestimated the power of "Yoga Fire" and "Yoga Flame"?
No Dhalsim players in Street Fighter here? Okay.
*****
Keep it classy. ;)
+Daric In fencing I have a move I call the Dhalsim technique. It hides my reach and when they try to retreat my attack keeps coming. Though it has nothing to do with real Indian swordsmanship.
+Daric I'm a proud Tekken advocate (up to 5, where I feel it reached its zenith), but used to go along to a SF tournament in my local craft beer pub. Entry was the cost of a pint, one could choose any pint of their own brews free, get to play on a big screen and there was great finger food to boot. I always played Dhalsim (Ultra SF IV), and spammed long range attacks, generally playing somewhat strategically, in the low ranks, but if I got further than the fourth match I just spun the left analog stick semi-randomly (I knew which movement would ideally do what, but never really got the hand movements down nicely. They feel so foreign) mashing a few select buttons. This made me teleport incessantly, occasionally sending out fireballs and almost unerringly Yoga Catastrophe when it was ready. I got to the semifinals twice with this tactic against fancy cancel-moving whizzkids
In USA all people could think of when they heard about India was street fighter and "Yoga Fire." Now it's Apu on the Simpsons. Y'all know there are like, famous Indian writers and scientists too, right?
ryan chatterjee Famous Indians in every field from spirituality, philosophy, yoga, altruism, science, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, technology, literature, commerce, industry, politics, war, to name just some
No because in our town the grandmother tells us that if any one caught showing the the dandpatta moves he was imprisoned
I am from Kerala, where Kalaripayattu originated. And it was during the war between British and Keralavarma Pazhassi Raja that British banned Kalaripayattu. Because Nair warriors and Ravuthar warriors practiced Kalaripayattu. And by banning they could not properly teach their children Kalaripayattu. That's the story I have heard. And you told about research, unfortunately British didn't not document all the things that they have done, I mean, British have smashed thumbs of many weavers, and no British have ever wrote about it. And there are many such examples throughout India not just Kerala. And many history of Kerala is not actually written, stories are shared by generations orally. And some Histories which were written, many of them were destroyed by the British. So when you researched you might have not got the full story. So I love this topic and I am starting research about this, and if and when I get some valueable information, I will share.
And if you think we Indians hate British for what they have done to us, No we don't hate British, atleast not alot of people. We forgive, but not forget! Those times are over, NOW we all need to make this place a better place to live for all!
If you need help reading Indian sources in Hindi and such, or any other Indian language I can help you find people over here. You actually make a lot of good points about Indian martial arts (especially the lack of point use etc.) which people would love to overlook from shear obstinacy. Cheers from India.
I don't know , if indians martial arts was banned; but after 1857 British banned the use and holding of weapons for indians. Many weapons which were past downed in families were confiscated and a large part of armed population was reduced. This also affected various cultures in parts of india where weapons were a part of day to day life and possess a strong martial culture
Probably just mimicking how Karate and other Japanese martial arts were promoted in US. Never mind that variety of jiu jitsu schools were practiced all over the islands openly by probably hundreds of thousands of people and by the end of 19th century Judo was practiced en mass all over the country BECAUSE it's training method proven a better combat preparation in actual test combat held by Tokyo police. Just a marketing trick, same as BJJ claiming that founder was some sickle weakling when faced Kimura, while in fact he was a tough experienced fighter that gave up 10-20lb to Kimura if not less. Reality is that things that work work better for strong, fast young people and whole mysticism of it is a pile of garbage.
scholagladiatoria i practise shastarvidya/gatka and have been learning for six years. I was thought in the Ranjit Akhara the main akhara of the Sikhs which has a direct lineage from the Gurus. If you look from the perspective of the Sikhs of Punjab it is obvious that the british had a huge impact on the art. After the Anglo Sikh Wars, the sikhs of punjab were disarmed so that they couldnt fight back as they did. It wasnt only the martial art but every aspect was affected. Martial arts werent banned but it was a sort of assimilation, so much that after 1857 most sikhs didnt believe their martial arts would survive. As Sikh scholar Giani Gian Singh said in Twarikh Guru Khalsa that every house in punjab had shields, lances, swords, muskets, and bows. Nowadays you dont see many sikhs carrying the full 3 foot sword and that is because of the influence of the british.
+scholagladiatoria
Because you don't care for truth or evidence, but just believe what you want to believe, you could learn for a hundred years in any akhara and not learn a single thing. Let me help you. You think this way and make up, pick and choose historical 'facts' because you were taught and brought up in an environment full of lies. Sikhs didn't save Hindus. Sikhs didn't bring down the Mughal empire. Sikhs didn't all carry 3-foot swords around (they carried kard knives originally). Take the red pill and stop wasting your life. The truth is a juggernaut and all liars will be crushed under its wheels. No brownie points from gods or gurus.
Indian weaponry were amazing. just look at all kinds of design of killing tools. Seriously when i was a kid my impression about Indians was: these people must practice everyday and know all the creative way of killing people. until later i have a few India friends....and all they talk about is peace and mercy, and put curry on everything they eat. i was so so so disappointing.
+Qiang Luo Terrible, isn't it?
+Qiang Luo Being peaceful isn't a SIN my friend.. Grow up !
Qiang Luo With the increasing reliance on guns and bombs, and vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine in modern warfare, traditional martial arts, with their traditional weapons, horsemanship, unarmed combat techniques, etc., were considered archaic and fell out of favour by those who wished to modernise. A similar move to modernise happened in Japan around the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century by the then Japanese Emperor and similarly China with Mao and the Cultural Revolution where Mao wanted to forcibly destroy Chinese martial arts causing many martial arts masters to flee mainland China.
'Ahimsa' = non-violence (in thought, word and deed) is a concept in Indian dharmic religions (i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.).
Do you understand now bro?
Qiang Luo They were good fighters but Gandhi made them coward peace lovers so they dont fight and accept and smiles towards whoever kicks them....they just need to be awakened from their deep sleep...
Qiang Luo You say there should be no peace start a war and you will see whether there would be no China
From all I can see online, the specific complaint is that after the British East India Company took control of Malabar from Tippu Sultan in 1792, they faced continued minor resistance and supposedly banned the practice of kalaripayat - but if that is the case, you'd have to check back for some sort of announcement to the effect, because I can't find any trace of it. Indeed, I can't find any source online that mentions the ban before the mid 2000s.
+Bobby Dee I did some digging yesterday and I couldn't find contemporary digitized source material. My best guess is to go to British Library archives in London and using Mark I eyeball. And there is lot of stuff there spanning years 1792-1804 when supposed bans happened. Any volunteers? :)
+Anssi Hakkarainen : Sure...for a stipend of USD 750/day plus reimbursement of actual and reasonable expenses :-D
As a (rather amateur) practitioner of the art of Kalari, it's interesting to hear this. If I ever do find anything, will let you know.
As an Indian, I think it would not make much sense for the British to ban any Indian martial art. As far as I know all battles from 1757 were won or lost based on military tactics (including betrayal) and not because of the way people fought. Also, a lot of rebellions resulted from the british enforcing or banning something. this kind of a thing would definitely have caused one as you are pushing people who are both capable and willing to fight
Kalaripayat of Kerala's martial arts banned by British colonials that time.
People have already pointed this out, but this sort of myth pervades most martial arts, it seems. Practitioners of Hwa Rang Do, an obscure Korean art, claim that the Japanese restricted its practice to a solitary monk until two brothers broke the rules to not only both be taught it, but to relocate their master amid the war in the '50's. Then there is Capoeira, purportedly practiced by slaves in Brazil in the guise of folk dancing. The facts of the matter might not ever be known fully, but the claims remain dubious at best.
Tulwars being described as the best cutting swords in the world really sounds like slander against Indian martial arts.
:)
I think that it's that people want to suggest that it's taboo, in order to try and attract people to it. Like the whole Ninjitsu garbage. There's also the desire to try and heighten the impression of oppression, by the conquerors.
Hi Matt! Big fan of yours. During Malabar rebellion I have heard that people's weapons were taken away. Supposedly high walls were banned and all private practitioners were monitored. Have you read accounts of Malabar Rebellion.
I have come across your point that britts not banned Indian martial arts. That’s not true though. My ancestors(warrior clan Thevar) own the martial arts school in Madurai TN side. But have to move to Marathas ruling Tanjore side Bcs of East India company’s indirect policy, martial arts schools and practice were banned, even in temple functions. All happened after when EIC solders with rifles couldn’t win against Pulithevan whose army fights only with swords and spears. They’ve blunted rifle volleys get near them cut them all in 3 initial wars from 1755 to 60. After 1767 pulithevan lost and taken over by EIC subedar Yosuf Khan, nearly all schools were banned by britts controlled areas under colonal Heron. So my ancestors have to move towards Tanjore where at least they can practice martial arts. After 1800 ban implemented to all princely states (except for Sikhs) too. Britts afraid of rebellion if they taken sword from Sikhs. Also If you want to wear sword you have to be sepoy or minimum should have to have chieftain status to hold. These rules were not mentioned in England Bcs till 1857 it was EIC that made law for India not UK law makers. So you won’t find it anywhere in writing or mentioning. Britts never ever accepted that they looted, rapped or oppressed India and Indians. It’s the ppl we remember those bloody history.
Matt, what's your stance on Kalaripayattu claiming to be the oldest martial art? Some claims even make it out to be the ancestor of Chinese and Japanese MAs.
+Marc Ritz Oldest, maybe if it predate budhism. The ancestor? Most likely not.
+Marc Ritz All martial arts are the same, whether it's wrestling, throwing spears or shooting arrows. The first humans to invent such things were not even homo sapiens sapiens :-)
Could you explain the Indian sword in your right hand ? its structure, quality of blade, the purpose behind its curve, what is that metal under the handle of this sword ? is it designed for single hand or both hands? why it is pointed on the tip and not flat? how can you say if an Indian curved tulwar is balanced or not?
jatin mogha hey mate, if your still interested, search for "tulwar" or "talwar", Matt has 3 or so videos on them
kind of like the myth that modern yoga was practiced by ancients yogis,
while in reality the idea was snatched from modern fitness workout manuals.
There might be some sliver of truth in the banning story. British colonial rulers tended to ban organizations involved in anticolonial activities and it might be that some indian martial arts "schools" were banned also. At least that is what superficial look at online sources suggests. Kalaripayattu wikipedia article references to: Luijendijk, D.H. (2005). Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art. Boulder: Paladin Press. ISBN 1-58160-480-7 but I have no access to it and can't verify the source.
Probably indian martial arts as a whole were not banned but some organizations or religious sects might have been and the story comes from there.
+Anssi Hakkarainen We also see some Shastar Vidiya writers claiming that the British forbade the practice of weapons in Sikh areas, but again I haven't found evidence for that. Historically it seems like nonsense, because the last Sikh War was in 1849 and by 1857 huge numbers of Sikhs were fighting for the British to squash the massive uprising in Bengal.... The British used Sikh and Gurkha soldiers extensively - they wanted them to serve as soldiers because of their fighting skills. They didn't want to remove those skills from future generations of soldiers.
+scholagladiatoria I think your reasoning is valid regarding practical value of locally trained fighters. It still doesn't exclude repression of some factions which were seen as too difficult to deal with. And it is probably historical hindsight to think that the British were banning martial arts when they were banning or suppressing political or religious faction. Even if the end result was decline of one or more martial arts traditions.
I see years 1793 and 1804 mentioned a lot regarding supposed ban of Kalaripayattu in Kerala. If its true then there should be historical sources confirming it as its said to be "banned by law". Any good links to online sources for British colonial law records?
Never mind, diving into National Archives now...
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
Indian martial arts went into obscurity because the independent powers that patronised them themselves became subjugated. Native states and empires were broken up into becoming part of the new polity. Their armies were disbanded and no longer allowed to be retained. Consequently their methods of warfare slowly died out. The art of the rhumal and binnot which were specialities of the thugs were completely eliminated by Col. Sleeman. The Bahutor tribe who specialised in breaking arms was declared a criminal tribe. Civilians were no longer allowed to carry swords and such other weaponry. Fari gatka, etc were just show oriented exibition arts and were performed for exercise or exhibition not war. And the story could go on. Just my view from 21st century India.
thanks for the insight . this is quite interesting , being an indian from punjab myself
i've seen pictures of indian's made to crawl in presence of british soldiers. which makes me think why would they allow a martial art to be practiced or even the event like jallian walla bagh where sikhs and hindu's were massacred for just gathering on the event of baisakhi festival.
i currently dont have any written sources but , i did saw the pictures of the indians crawling.
if i find them i will post em here
The British band our Ancient Martial arts and even our Gurukul where students learn the martial arts .
Many things were banned under British rule except opium, lots of opium ...
Yes, like burning widows or killing peoples for their faith (google for Sikh martyrs). And the biggest part of India though under British rule stayed autonomous under their local rulers.
Substandard Gamer Kiba
Maybe the British did ban "many things". I'm certainly not a supporter of imperialism. However scholagladiatoria
is not saying that "Many things" were not banned. All he is saying is that he cannot see any evidence for the British banning the practising of Indian martial arts.
Banning something makes it more controversial so I think that is why they say that, because who doesn't like the romantic notion of rediscovering a 'lost art'
Can I ask what the name of the sword on the right is? (The one without a hilt)
+Richie Demo it's a pata
So Matt, tell us, is that blade in your left hand mainly for flipping everybody off?
This is an excellent video. CORRECT
Contrary to popular belief, the British didn't have time to rule directly.
Even the British Indian Army served mostly overseas. (like the US Marine Corps).
The British delegated India Empire to various Indian Princes (Nawabs and Maharaja), who kept a private local army to keep order. They were armed by the British up to small artillery and even armored cars.
Today, Indian nationalists writers make up lies about the British Raj.
(In India 🇮🇳 but not in Bangladesh, Nepal or Pakistan)
I get excited every time I see a new video from THE SCHOLA!!!!!
Hello,Matt.
I want to ask you two questions.
What is the differences between medieval armingsword and renaissance cut and thrust sword or side sword?
And also,from the swordsmanship,what is the differences between medieval armingswird and renaissance cut and thrust sword or side sword?They are both one handed sword in western Europe
Hey, Indian here. Really informative. Kalari Paitu has generally been such a mystical thing to me.
Not being British, I noticed that there was a certain "blaming the British" for the demise of Indian culture and loss of historical information. When I asked for examples none were given when I suggest there might other reasons like lack of systemic record keeping, lack of open information in society etc the idea wasn't welcomed. So seems to be a cultural notion that sneaky Britain raped India and stole everything.
+Shannon Lodge I only know a bit about early India, but the idea that there was a lack of record keeping doesn't really make sense. There seems to be a tradition of fastidious record keeping in terms of both state matters and a tradition of funereal biographies dating back at least to the Mauryan empire. The idea of a lack of openness about information also doesn't make sense (again, in early Indian history at least,) as most governments for most of history have been rather cagey, and we still know plenty of stuff about them, and in India's case Ashoka was actually well-more forthcoming that most other emperors in the world, with some of his pillar-proclamations basically just saying "hey so there are these kings way into the West here are their names. Just, helpful info about the world." Also if you want to talk about British imperialism getting in the way of Indian history, there's actually a lot of ways for them to do it without committing any flagrant or intentional act of censorship. All that really needs to happen is for their investigations to be missing cultural context, and for the conclusions of those investigations to eventually be accepted by mainstream Indians after a few generations, which is in fact what we see. Early European theories of Eastern Despotism (that is, a despot controlling irrigation, and by doing so controlling all of society,) have stuck around until the 20th century, and it's only relatively recently that this theory has been shown to be basically completely untrue, with the various nations of India having all the complicated relationships between landlords and clans and monarchs that one would expect. There's also this idea of a fundamental caste system that remains stable and clear throughout Hindu India's history (a product of colonialist talking almost exclusively with brahmans when it came to history), which has also been demonstrably false, with the early Nanda dynasty (and many others, I've heard) coming from the shudra, or roughly laborer, caste, not the kshatriya caste as is supposed to be custom. So, yeah, British colonial rule did a number on Indian history, more by grossly misinterpreting and distorting things than by having book burnings or the like, and most likely these distortions aren't really intentional so much as clumsy and myopic.
+Thomas Hightower maybe in certain parts of India at certain periods however I was not referring a registry of births, deaths and marriages. Also, it only takes periods of chaos for records to be lost. I think you would concede that is the value of a centralised library system. Also from my experience of India it ends to be chaotic by nature.
As Orwell once observed, an empire is a commercial venture.
The English entered India first as traders and then as invaders. Trade got them a foothold into the country , and then realising how weak it was, the English gradually took control until they ruled the subcontinent. They destroyed native agriculture to grow commercial crops that could be exported profitably. The famines and mass unemployment that followed ruined India. The profits were naturally repatriated to Mother England.
India's wealth attracted the English. After helping themselves , and mismanaging the economy to collapse they left. When they left, India's poverty ( like its wealth before) was proverbial.
+Raj Ray well the same could be said about the Moghul invasion. Difference was, premise was different. Under the British Empire you were allowed to become independent and remain in the commonwealth of nations. Under the Moghul rule you all would have put to the sword. If we take the Orissa famine, the reason behind British non-interference is they (colonial governor in Calcutta) deemed that interfering would cause a unnatural act as economy like nature should be left to it own natural cycles. Aid was finally brought (by an Englishman who disagreed with the governor economic paradigm), unfortunately too little too late. But where were the farmer's silos and warehouse? When I visited Orissa a few years ago I observed that nothing much had changed for the plight of the agricultural people even under independent rule
+Shannon Lodge Both statements are incorrect. The British empire did not continence independence. Read up American history a bit.
Under Moghul rule India was richer than Western Europe, which is why it was invaded by England. And most rulers were exemplary for the times. Akbar set the standard for tolerance, at a time when Europe was burning People for religious reasons.
The British looted the sub continent bare. Their downfall as a nation dates to the time they left.
@Joshua Madoc is this not your spare time?
This reminds me of Sir Roderick Ponce von Fontlebottom the Magnificent Bastard in Jade Empire; his answer to being challenged to a martial arts duel is to simply draw his blunderbuss and shoot the challenger point blank :D
Jade Empire. Sweet.
+Fr0st1989 Indiana Jones did it first...and better.
Regolith i know this
cutting a lemon(invisible from outside) placed in a clay pot such that one half would remain in pot and the other half would fall outside, cutting the clay pot also.Kindly research about poligars a book by british officer mentions that the poligar carried long greek style phalanx like staff and fought in a unique style.
Maybe, but it's not actually that far out of character either. If I recall correctly (possibly from Mark Rector's book), the British basically outlawed Highland swordsmanship outside of the British military. By the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the Saber and Broadsword Manuals were being written because they had to be. Scots no longer had a base of civilian broadsword training for use in their own ancestral weaponry.
+Jeff Acheson This is sort of using one myth to explain another myth :-) The Highland clearances were a thing, but there were no laws banning the practice of fencing in Scotland. Swordsmanship in Scotland continued.
+scholagladiatoria The highland clearance was uper class clansmen again they retainers.We speak here about the repression of the Jacobite rebellion and the extermination of the Scottish warriors hostile to the English ,the lowland and the Protestant highlanders. So the military useful highland tradition survived perfectly in the Highland regiments of the British army.
Mr. Easton, how is it that you can bring up a simple point of discussion and cause such a furor on the interwebs? Do you have secret power or something?
Matt is there any evidence that during the Medieval period in Europe, that test cutting was done? Thanks
+Cold Steel Fanboy Katana Lover Not explicitly, no (not besides a few isolated examples of testing sword blades)
Hey Matt, InRangeTV did a video about hand weapons in World War one trench raids and discussed if a Club, a Trench Knife or a Spade are more effective then a Bajonet on a Rifle in a cose combat situation.
The trench knifes also where often just a metal spikes with a handguards and they gave the point thaat this would make it easier to cut through multiple layers of Winter clothing then with a reglar blade. InRangeTV and forgotten weapons are really good when it comes to firearms but they also dont know alot about hand to hand combat, maybe you (or the commenters) can look deeper into it
+Dwarf-Elvish Diplomacy Seeing a collaboration between Forgotten Weapons and ScholaGladiatoria would make my day. Or week.
Cutlass Pistols
That would be cool. I think some work on fighting with a carbine and a Bowie knife (which Matt talked about a while ago) would be another good area for collaboration.
Regarding the WWI weapons video, I thought FW did a decent job of explaining the improvised weapons and issued knives/daggers, but they didn't really do the rifle/bayonet justice. This is likely because, by their own admission, they are not hardcore martial artists. I don't know if Matt does a lot of bayonet fencing, but if FW teamed up with someone who did, and had enough protective equipment to try it at combat speeds, that would be very illustrative.
MisdirectedSasha
They did said that the problems in trenches were the reason bajonets got shorter later, but i cant imagine that this would change the lot, the Kar98 didnt changed a lot during the wars and was still about the same size.
I am interested if it would be really that easy to grab a carbine poked at you by jjust moving sideways, because that is hard to do with a spear. Also Karl smacks Ians hand with the english E-Tool stick and i cant imagine that a fight would work this way.
Karl commented that he would like to work together with someone that has an idea about HEMA
ill ask, as i often do, if you have come across of references of british soldiers in malaya and their view of indigenous martial arts there?
+kuntaosilat sweden I have some primary sources relating to Sarawak.
+scholagladiatoria wow great! can you point me in the right direction or tell more?
Hey Matt, I do FMA (in Germany). There are a lot of people sayin the same about the spanish banning fma in the filipines while they ruled the countrie. Do you know something about it? It's a different countrie but I'm curious ;). I think it's the same with capoeira, that's why it looks so dancy.
Thx and greetings from Germany
+Julian Fu A lot of people have asked this and given educated answers - it seems also to be a myth. If there were any attempts to ban weapon practice in the region then they clearly didn't work. But there doesn't seem to be any real evidence for such restrictions.
+scholagladiatoria There are sources but these are already English translations of Spanish books, that the Spanish on occasion did ban sharps but this was only a single village during certain times. I've also only read about this happening during the later half of the 19th century. There are many more documented cases of the Spanish training native militias. We know that by the 19th century, the Spanish used troops from different parts of the Philippines to act as the police and militia. These native troops were armed and were trained in Spanish saber techniques. Now one thing I've heard is that Spanish military saber techniques (and I've seen one manual) was based on the British training method. Matt do you know of any resources that might illustrate that connection?
+scholagladiatoria The proof is actually in the art itself. I'm Filipino and most if not all our history is oral or in this case of martial arts expressed through body movement. I come from a Floro Villabrille lineage in Filipino Martial Arts and part of the martial art is to pass down the history. My footwork drills are literally "dances" to hide the true nature of why we moved like that. We are at our nature a bladed martial art. If the stick was JUST a training tool to simulate blades and there were no bans on bladed weapons, then why did the stick get chosen over the blade? Why carry a stick around when you can carry a barong for example and not get arrested for it? That's why the Moros in the south didn't have any "stick work" in their martial arts. They were never colonized and therefore kept their bladed martial arts "pure".
The main reason why we pass down history in my martial art is to get a better understanding of the martial art and therefore excel in it. National pride should never be the main focus.
Matt - I enjoyed this. I have a question that is at a slight tangent.
In your Historical research what have you come across with respect to Chinese martial arts and swordsmanship.
Obviously British military presence was not as big in China as it was in India, but it certainly existed.
Most stories of Chinese martial arts of the 19th and early 20th century that I know of come from the Chinese perspective. I'm sure I'd not be the only one interested in stories from the British perspective.
Kalari is Kerala based. Could be a local administration thing.
I don't know about Indian martial arts but on October 6, 1818, Governor Robert Brownrigg banned martial arts in Sri Lanka via the government gazette after brutally suppressing an uprising.
What's the name of the sword in your left hand, Matt?
Actually, I have my own question regarding Indian Martial Arts that every time I ask, nobody answers. Was the katar ever used as parrying companion weapon (like rapier and dagger) to other weapons like the tulwar, khanda or pata? I remember having a freestyle spar and experimented with a military sabre and katar (I know, it's weird), and the katar felt pretty good as a parrying weapon. So again I'm curious if teaching or using a katar as an offhand to other weapons is or were taught in Indian Martial Arts?
There was a weapon ban after the Bengal rebellion. I think there are records of entire village of hunters who did not surrender their weapons being slaughtered.
Any documentation and books that you can refer to, that refute those claims?
+Dennis Bauer That's not how sources work. People generally don't spend a lot of time writing down things that DIDN'T happen.
What you do is what Matt has done: look for sources that say something DID happen, and if there are none to be found, it probably didn't.
+Dennis Bauer There are dozens of sources that run contrary to these claims published in the book I refer to in this video - Swordsmen of the British Empire, but D A Kinsley, from Lulu Publishing.
Doc Eon I did not want Matt to prove it, i just wanted to know in which books he came across these bits of info, i am no expert, i wouldn't know which books to go for.
Thanks for the info Mr. Easton
Dennis Bauer
If that was all, he said it in the video, didn't he?
Well maybe he knows some other interesting books on the subject
The weapon in the left hand seems like an inferior weapon as it restricts the use of the wrist, unlike a longsword or saber, though I don't know its intended use.
Draw cuts lots of draw cuts
what's the gauntlet sword hybrid that you are wearing called?
Pata
history is written by the victor.
Primary sources aren't always though. There are millions of primary sources written by those who lost.
scholagladiatoria wrong sir because Indians were never historians gatering of 10 or more people were banned...I never trust British sources.
As if the victor wouldn't destroy any evidence not making the victor look as grand as possible lol. He thinks we're stupid apparently lol
Awful lot of explanation with no backing going along here. You're never going to convince someone of something by calling them liars.
What is that sword in your left hand and how would you use it?
British destroyed our martial traditions one by one. Glad that some have survived.
PIYUSH JAISWAL you're right, I learned kalaripayyattu from my family and it's true that the British outlawed it. Just an other Pomme trying to defend his country.
th-cam.com/video/oI84oM_bJeg/w-d-xo.html
It would've been very difficult to ban such in an Eastern society at the time. Esstern martial systems are heavily tied to their spirituality/rituals medicine, dances, etc. They are holistic systems. Which pretty much means that messing with one part of an art affects all the other parts. Even if the British had tried I suspect it wouldn't have woeked.
did you try any of the trick ??
please upload a video about it
I'm from India, and has trained in kalari. I can assure you there was no ban😂😂😂and to call it dangerous is funny, as the current practices have deviated from actual combat to demonstration excercise and bullshido, just to make claims like "mother of all martial arts", it dwells more on plains of spirituality than that of combative arts. Simply put kalari is the yoga of martial arts.(and yes yoga too is mainly propaganda and bullshido now)
Hi,
British did ban the practice of Mamangam, which was a practice in Kerala a Southern State of India.
It was stupid any way. People killing each other.
Not a sword but sword-related: the practice of using indian clubs transferred from Indians to the British. Any sources for approx. when this happened, Matt?
You can also find a proof in forest around mutiny memorial delhi. There are signs of an akhada and martial art site, locals say brtishers banned them in 18th century.
I also have heard, but been unable to substantiate, that Cambodian martial arts were banned around WWII. It's a fairly popular claim in a number of countries.
This is exactly what I need to deal with my noisy upstairs neighbors at 6:30
How's your ceiling ?
what is the name of the sword in your left hand?
probably because in a lot colonial situations there are cases where unruly local populations were discouraged or banned from learning martial arts etc as a check against rebellion, we see this in brazil the philipines, and also in okinawa when the japanese from the home islands invaded and occupied the place.. supposedly being the reason why karate/ kobudo uses so many unconventional weapons such as hoes, oars, the sickle (one in each hand as opposed to only one as shown in paulus hector mayer)
+elgostine You didn't watch the video then?
yup, i did, i just figure it's generally assumed that wherever colonial forces go, they disarms the locals and ban their regional martial art hence why people would think it happened in india
+elgostine That's an urban myth though. In effective colonialism you conquer a place and the immediately use the skills of the conquered. You don't want to get rid of their skills. Hence the Sikhs were finally brought under British control in 1849 and by 1857 were fighting in the front ranks of the British Army to defeat the rebellious Bengal Army, very effectively. The Sikhs and the Gurkhas essentially won the Indian Mutiny for the British.
+scholagladiatoria Are you sure? I have a source that pretty much gives the credit to Flashman.
Can you talk about indian sheilds and why are little different from european or any other sheilds :D
+sagar chowdhary they are? do they have a name? so I can google it. if its those really small shields, those are just like bucklers.
+acuerdox India has a long and decorative history of weaponry: duckduckgo.com/?q=dhal+shield&t=ffsb&iax=1&ia=images
+acuerdox yes those small shields and there is sheild which has a sword attached to it i don't know its Name
+Primitive Futurologist DuckDuckGo user, eh? Come here, my brother.
acuerdox this one was used for practice purpose jagrhall360mc.files.wordpress.com
As always, nice video keep em comming. p.s for your next 5 questions you do, I want to see you show a picture of you with hair on your head for laughs.
Yesterday I mused about which would be your weapons of choice for a zombie apocalypse.
I settled on a warhammer, a bowie knife, a military sabre and a bow...
Personally, I'd take my 1796 HC out and give it a good sharpening. Things a natural skull-splitter.
Hmm, wikipedia currently says "The British colonial government banned kalaripayat in 1804 in response to a series of revolts" and in support cites as a source "Luijendijk, D.H. (2005). Kalarippayat: India's Ancient Martial Art. Boulder: Paladin Press. ISBN 1-58160-480-7". Unfortunately that work doesn't seem to be online so I can't confirm that it actually says that or what evidence it gives. If that book exists and makes that claim, it might be possible to trace where this notion comes from.
The same article also notes what you said, though, that "traditional fighting systems persisted, sometimes even under the patronage of enthusiastic British spectators". Maybe there was a temporary, regional ban under a certain local government?
+HebaruSan Interesting, thanks. I'll try to see if I can get to the bottom of that. If there was some kind of limited-regional ban, I'd be interested to see the wording of it, because clearly, as stated, traditional martial arts such as gatka and wrestling continued.
Interesting. I remember a literature class at university called 'Visions of India' I+II. First part was about books written by British authors (e.g. Paul Scott), second part included post-colonial writings by the Indians themselves (e.g. Rushdie). I cannot recall a ban of martial arts mentioned anywhere.
:-)
This is a claim in many martial arts and there is rarely any evidence to support it. I think it is just salesmanship which is repeated for so long it becomes truth in the minds of its practitioners. "This martial art was so effective it was banned." If that were the case don't you think the colonizing armies would have actually learned it? wouldn't there be a record? It just doesn't sell as many memberships to teach the martial practice of the losing side I guess, so it has to be talked up like a used car.
To all sword fans:
The British Army built their great Empire by their excellent musket/ rifle / cannon drill.
The ottoman won by canon firepower
The Mughals won by canon/ musket firepower
Even the Japanese katana sword was obsolete as soon as the Portuguese came in the 15th century with flintlocks and musket.
The sword was a secondary weapon, an officers badge of honor.
Gun 🔫 is king.
They also created famine and forced weapon by back programs and if ppl wouldnt comply theree werr severe punishments would like. Me to get you the refrence its been awhile since ilooked up the document im sure ican find it and there many incidents where especially the purotaan khalsa akali nihangs who werre extermly pursued where there numbers dwindled doen to memory of a few hundred
This reminds me of the video where you state the British (or Europeans) had a low opinion of Chinese Kung Fu or Chinese Boxing because they didn't think it was better than European boxing. I liked how you pointed out that before the rules limited what could be done in the ring they used to kick a lot, both that and this are very interesting videos.
there is a correction here the mardani khel mainly (fencing with all this lemon cutting etc ) is not a battle field martial arts this are amusement thing battle field talims were disbanded by the brits that wat the stories are here in the deccan of india after balwant fhlake or phalke did his revolt
Helo Jhon Snow. I am from India and also a history student. I think you should have mention your sources. Don't be a advocate to the mistakes made by your grandparents who looted India.
So many mistaken British rule in Indian. India come under British rule part by part and step by step. They started as business house then tex collector for native governments then small garrison to protect there toll houses then missionary army for local ruler then ruler directly and indirectly. warrior casts like Pathan, Baloch, Rajput, Sikh, Dogra, Gorkha served British and even fight native for them so no issue to ban any art.
"They had this great force of soldiers, why would they want to wreck it?"
Maybe someone confused the British with the Americans. :p
What are those weapons he's holding?
Probably a talwar and a pata.
Outstanding. Thank you for addressing this claim.
Mat I let me tell you one thing that is in India during the British rule almost a decade before the war there are said to be documents that says that the high ranking officers were disregarding many orders that came from England and started banning martial arts and other activities that they were not supposed to do because reasons like their forces being stretched thin and other factors so control over foreign forces was difficult. So can you look into it further more because I remember reading something like that was the reason behind England loosing its grip over India. Because this thing has been told to us all our lives so it will be so great to know the truth and as the moto of my country is "Satyamev Jayate"
+scholagladiatoria
Matt, does your research cover the Company Raj as well?
Don't doubt you actually, but I can fully imagine the Company having banned it at some point, before realising it was more useful to have skilled warriors.
I would also pretty much expect it to be have been banned locally and during certain periods. Like during and in the wake of the Sepoy Rebellion. Simply because this is the way colonies were ruled all the time and everywhere...
could you talk about the shshka?
In the year 1792 the British had established
their supremacy over Malabar, North Kerala. The new rulers banned
Kalaripayattu in 1793 after suppressing a local uprising. In 1804 the
British authorities passed an order that those who concealed weapons or
defied the ban on carrying arms would be deported for life. The same
measures were resorted to in quelling an uprising in Travancore in Southern
Kerala. The British successfully brought this traditional military system to
an end by banning it completely. However, a band of devoted followers
secretly practiced this martial art and imparted training in it so that it
could be preserved for the sake of posterity.
I'm guessing that you saw a video claiming that the traditional Indian martial arts (I cant remember the correct names) are the oldest and most superior martial arts..
when I saw that i was actually disappointed at how much traction it was gaining in a time where you can learn practically all there is to learn on a topic any time you want to with a simple google search
+Duck Yes, their claims and outputs have annoyed me for a while.
scholagladiatoria it truly upsets me that there is so much misinformation and so many people that spout nonsense when it comes to martial arts, both in history and in the modern age.
Maybe British sources don't mention banning martial arts, but Indian ones do? Or perhaps the British bans were implemented in the 18th century? It seems plausible that British sources might be less sensitive to the repressive influence of the British presence than the Indians were.
I'd be interested to learn more about the basis for claims that Indian martial arts were repressed or restricted during British rule.
+Thisold Hatte If there were any bans, then we have to question why all British sources talk openly about Indian martial arts in positive terms. It's very clear from the British sources that India martial arts were still being practiced everywhere and that the British both admired and sought to recruit these fighters as soldiers!
scholagladiatoria Thats true, but is it not possible that there were limited or specific restrictions on martial arts practices? For instance on a type of martial art? or perhaps the closing of particular schools, which were perhaps known to be antagonistic toward colonial rule?
P.S. I posted my comment before finishing the video and so missed the part where you invited people familiar with Indian sources to contribute anything you might be missing by studying British sources.
+Thisold Hatte It does seem plausible that 'banned people using martial arts against the British Empire' got translated into 'banned people using martial arts...' The claim makes a lot of sense once you add '...against the British Empire'.
Sounds in line with the rest of SE Asia, the use of bamboo sticks, etc. to practice, to date, where the British generally did use, hire or work with indian armies inclusive of pakistan, the spanish did ban martial arts in philippines and the japanese did in where they conquered..
For the first few seconds of this upload I thought that Matt was showing off his new robot blade borg hand. :)
You've discovered a 19th century urban legend.
19th Century England was okay with Indians learning to fight with swords and guns, but modern England is scared of curved swords.
Good presentation sir,I must say.Have nice day.With warm regards from ParamitavDey & family.Kolkata. India.