Anonymous at Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:25:26 UTC No. 130654

traditional ancestor arts of combat from tamil nadu
>http://martial-arts-of-tamil-nadu.blogspot.com/2015/09/adi-murai-brutal-and-most-vulnerable.html

general list
>https://medium.com/@krishnarg/13-ancient-indian-martial-arts-71628229f215
Also remember brahmacharya(semen retention)was the foundational stone of any indian military achievement

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:36:45 UTC No. 130655

daito ryu aikijijutsu channel
https://www.youtube.com/@guillaumeerard/videos

kobudo art demonstrations
https://www.youtube.com/@seidobudostudies/videos

I know that Equestrian skill was valuable for knight-caster, as well as armored grappling, bow-and-arrow, and all 3 combined(riding a horse,while using a bow,in full armor)
it seems the sport of Hunting also played a role in developing paramilitary skills

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:55:57 UTC No. 130658

>>130655
>I know that Equestrian skill was valuable for knight-caster
If you’re multi-classing as a caster just take fly at level 5. You get just as much movement speed as you would on a mount with far more maneuverability.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:07:38 UTC No. 130668

>>130653
The problem with this question is the assumption of standardization, which is a common problem modern/postmodern people have when amateurly looking at the premodern past. Every knight or samurai was privately tutored, often by family, and the only standards were that particular tutor's standards. Quality control was abysmal, and charlatanry rampant. Standardization was perhaps the great miracle of Modernism. Across all endeavors, not just war. Minimum standards for soldiers, doctors, teachers, engineers, food safety, and so on, that all practitioners must meet to be legally allowed to practice, has saved more lives and increased living standards more than perhaps anything else in all of history. This is true in both Europe and Japan. I think your post about India is questionable, perhaps any noble warrior could know how to do each of those skills, but mastery is unlikely.

That said: Common skills for a Western European knight would be is similar to the Indian post. The most important skills were dancing, riding, fencing (armored, unarmored), wrestling, jousting, tourney, and hunting. There are medieval or early modern writings for each of those skills. There are descriptions and depictions of fitness training, but endurance and suppleness were prioritized, not hypertrophy. Think Decathletes, not weightlifters. And again, no standardized curriculum ever existed.

Anonymous at Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:10:44 UTC No. 130669

>>130668
Furthermore, In China, which at times was VERY standardized, there was no "warrior class." Career soldiers, maybe, but a military life actively hindered an ambitious career.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination#Subordination_of_the_military
>The importance of the regular imperial examinations in governance had the effect of subordinating the military to civil government. By the time of the Song dynasty, the two highest military posts of Minister of War and Chief of Staff were both reserved for civil servants. It became routine for civil officials to be appointed as front-line commanders in the army. The highest rank for a dedicated military career was reduced to unit commander. To further reduce the influence of military leaders, they were routinely reassigned at the end of a campaign, so that no lasting bond occurred between commander and soldier. The policy of appointing civil officials as ad hoc military leaders was maintained by both the Ming and Qing dynasties after the initial phase of conquest. ...Although it negatively impacted the military's performance at times, the new relationship between the civil and military sectors of the government avoided the endemic military coups of preceding dynasties for the rest of imperial Chinese history.

Thus, there was no gentleman warrior class of China past Song dynasty (900s AD). Ambitious families with means forced their children to study, not train. Martial arts were a pastime of established elites, and useful skill of civilian security (bouncers, caravan guards, etc.). Drill is more important for footsoldiers in an army than real skill with weapons.

Anonymous at Tue, 31 Jan 2023 06:07:25 UTC No. 134220

>>130653
So, we don't really have that, except has generalities: lists of skills a warrior was supposed to know, equipment they were required to own, and maybe a rough idea of how they trained.
Most of the martial arts we have from places like western Europe or Japan that focused on these arts were more like distillations. Their practitioners were as likely to be semi-wealthy urbanites as high class warriors or front line soldiers. In some cases what they offered was probably far more in depth than what the warriors trained in, in other ways it was probably a lot more limited. Alot of them focused on one on one dueling, Which was very important to the upper classes, but not very useful in pitched battle.
>>130668
This poster pretty much gets it. Even in latter periods where professional teachers became a big thing, only a minority of the people fighting on the battlefield would have been extensively trained in those systems. They learned from their father's or friends of their father or by hard experience.