Neat stuff, Dave. There are a few things I'd discuss differently, but they're matters of interpretations, specifically viz such things as evasion forms, redirective combat and oppositional combat, etc. Also the heavily armored remark applied to samurai...They were heavily armored compared to the standards of the bushi who took the field before them, but their armor wasn't a patch on sixteenth century European plate. In its earliest form, it was mostly meant to deter arrows. Not normally something I'd point at because it isn't usually discussed in that relationship but your paper is trying to take on both oriental and occidental, so it might be a note of worth. Were you around for any of the discussions where Gerry Perkins, Baron and I discussed the differences implicit in building hand to hand combat styles for a more horizontal torso viz the raptors and other saurians in DEA, and how these would fair when confronted with the upright human styles?

Most of these topics are subject to an incredible variety of interpretations—and indeed, I for one encourage that. It means people are thinking, and getting people to think is the real point of the exercise.

No, I don’t believe I was around for those discussions, although  baroncoon has mentioned them in passing during some of our conversations over the years.

There were some little sketches that came out of that showing about where kick and punch arcs might be for such characters. I'll see if I can find them. We figured most raptors and similar horizontal-spine critters would have an absolutely terrifying frontal attack arc but they have to be very linear, there isn't the flexibility for most circular fighting styles...And they're tremendously vulnerable to the side. Humans can actually arm-block within about a two-twenty degree arc. Something like a raptor with forearms and hands (a la DEA) can do the same...but only along about the front forty percent of its body. It can't do much at all to defend its hindquarters except using its tail, and it has to do that via guesswork or rotate its head far enough to leave it really open to attack from any target still to its front. A great many 'assumptions' that human martial arts share go out the window under those circumstances. Of course, most furry types don't have that sort of deviation from human body structure, though. Barring 'taurs of all types. Fluffy ears and tail don't do much to influence an otherwise human-normal body structure, albeit the tooth and claw issue does arise.

Claws and teeth that are more useful as weapons than humans have do require significant modification to body plan, particularly the former and especially if they’re retractile. Apparently, the reason humans have nails instead of claws is to enable them to use their fingers effectively.

Otherwise, I certainly can’t argue with the biomechanical difficulties of a horizontal body. It certainly would argue for an ingenious, rigorously taught school of martial arts, just to be on even terms with a small, more agile human.

Yeah, the partial tube of the nails strengths the fingertip and allows more pressure to be applied in a grip than would be available with the hard core of the bone alone. Something we just went over in anthropology, evolution of nails in primates. Veeeeery interesting stuff, but then evolution usually is.

Non-retractile claws would be an intriguing option. You might or might not lose sensitivity (tactile nerve endings at the base of the claw to measure pressure on it?) but you certainly would build your tools a bit differently, I imagine.

And oh man...Now I have this bizarre image of a bunch of classical dinosaurs arrayed nervously in 'morning T'ai-Chi exercise' mode with little hairy mammals peeking at them from the bushes...

Ah! I hadn’t known of the strengthening role of nails. Now that’s fascinating!

Heehee! What a charming image.

Something I've always been interested in, with my setting development efforts, is technological disparities between differing species. A purely agricultural species, herbivores, will never have any need for tools like spears, and thus they will never develop items like bows and arrows. On the other hand, carnivores might never develop certain types of striking pole-arm, being so focussed from an early stage on spear-thrusts.

A point! On the other hand, don’t forget that self-defense is a pretty strong imperative, regardless of species—and herbivores are famous for not having the checks on aggression that predators do. A species of deer, as a whole, may tend to be slow to anger, but when it happens, watch out! They won’t hold back. At all. So herbivores may in fact have very well-developed martial arts and tools, if they have to cope with encroaching competition or predators.

Of course, it all depends on the overall level of technology. You may well have a good set-up for a Neolithic or early Bronze-Age world, for instance, where everyone is still flailing around, experimenting with all sorts of things, and trade is difficult and small-scale.

Yeah, my setting work I'm drawing conclusions like this from is set in a cultural climate that varies from Stone age to mid-to-late bronze age. Helps cut down on the amount of brainwork required to push it beyond really basic tool-use. The 'this species has this technology' issue muddies fairly quickly once you have cultures mingling - if a bunch of deer get shot at with arrows, it's a fair bet they'll experiment with the concept.

But the thing is, it's a progression of tool use. A society that can - or must - draw on a single food source will have a more limited repertoire than humanity did, who can go after root vegetables _and_ creatures.

So yeah, deer may go to war, but they'll be adapting agricultural tools that weren't initially designed to kill anyone. The predators, on the other hand, will have a head start in the 'tools designed to kill people' arena.

IMO, of course.

Even in the real world an awful lot of weapons are adaptations of agricultural implements—particularly nunchucks (rice flails), certain kinds of polearms (scythes), and a host of others I can’t bring to mind on the fly. There’s plenty of precedent for it, goodness knows!

I’m not sure how restrictive food sources are in dictating aggression or military sophistication. It might work the other way; people whose livelihood is more delicately balanced might be more willing to engage in ferocious behavior in defense of it. (And, of course, there is the factor I mentioned previously, that herbivores lack the restraint on aggression that predators have.)

Those deer may live in a land of plenty, isolated from hostile tribes of whatever sort; then, indeed, they are likely to be peaceful and unaccustomed to war. If they live on marginal land or near potential enemies, they might be more sophisticated.

I guess what it boils down to is that all the factors have to be considered before assigning attributes to a given tribe or village.

True, but the agricultural polearms fall in a set of weapons which are typically used by individuals. The classic 'big formation' weapons were, in my opinion, the spear and the bow. Both of which I contend you need to hunt to develop.

And it's true about the livelyhood being delicately balanced thing - farmers actually need access and control of a specific bit of territory year-round, wheras hunter-gatherers with a high focus on the hunter will be able to give up a given location in favour of unfettered movement. If you herd cattle in a very early sort of nomadic way, following grazing, this applies too. As such your predators are, although capable of killing, not neccesarily capable of putting into place a professional army.

And yeah. Each individual case will... be an individual case.

It could lead to some fascinating interactions, as you get peaceful herbivores, warlike herbivores, peaceful predators, and warlike predators. Oh the potential for culture shocks!

I am reminded of the range wars of the Old West. . . .

You can also end up with herd-grazing herbivores who don't go in for agriculture, merely gathering, as opposed to agriculture-using herbivores. It's harder to get the predators stuck in one place, though, since raising slaughterable animals requires food for them, which either requires farming or nomadic travel or trade with agriculturists.

There's a lot of scope for cultural clashes, definitely. And I am painfully unaware of Old West history in any kind of depth, but I believe I grok the kind of thing. Squabbling over food - or at least the economic structure to support food - really does come up very often.

There are some fascinating tales involving the range wars among farmers, cattle ranchers, and sheep rachers—especially the latter two. The cattle ranchers won in the end. It was a a remarkably ruthless economic and sometimes quasi-military conflict, and there are echoes still going on today. It’s well worth looking into for some of the underlying motivations and methods; I’m sure there are precedents and similar strife going back to before recorded history.

It's worth noting, Fooz, that some of the most nasty damned medieval weapons (occidental or oriental!) were adaptations of agricultural tools. The jitte and sai, the bill hook (nasty), kama, voulge, and any varieties you care to name of axes...

I'd rather have someone come after me with an epee!!!

Also in terms of human anthropology, you start seeing evidence of real 'warfare' rather than occasional tribal disputes when you see the development of agriculture. Nomadic peoples that hunt can avoid each other, when you put down roots (literally) suddenly you have something you have to protect, and that others will want to raid.

So I'm inclined to think herbivorous creatures might actually be a damned sight meaner and more warlike...But that's just IMHO and certainly no urge to change your world or the the Hundred Kith Athara. They're damn nifty as they are.

Theroetically the Kith Athara are an example of that, though - keep in mind the wolves are all running around in hunting packs and getting thrown off their awesome turf by _rabbits._ :P

Better still!!!

I always feel a little guilty when I bring out points that someone might interpret as undercutting their created world image.

Oddly, I have no such reluctance to bring out points that nuke people's actual world views.

Odd. Respect for creative art but not for world views that I see as incompatible with reality? But then, this is the guy who illustrates reality vs. wishful thinking as a semi-tractor having a head-on collision with a unicorn.

Now THAT is some unpleasant roadkill.

World views will potentially lead to direct harm. Creative world views will not. Altering people's world views is, thus, potentially a neccesary service. Creative stuff... that could just be construed as unkind.

I don't know about the Unicorn being unpleasant road kill. Haven't you seen a Lisa Frank poster? Clearly it would glisten with the most beautiful rainbows playing over the gooey shattered remnants of cuteness.

Sorta OT but if we're talking herbivores -- I figure they'd actually be stronger and tougher than carnivores? (As compared to the usual stereotype of puny herbivores and macho predators)

At the very least, several of the books on hunting I've read have included accounts of the damage taken by some herbivores, esp. Cape Buffalo, before they died, that were staggering! Broken hips, skulls, legs, and they still came at their attackers.

Cape Buffalo are an exceedingly special case.

Cape Buffalo are Satan.

But yeah, herbivores who go into all-out attack mode are doing so to defend the herd, usually, which means it's _okay_ for them to die. Same cannot be said of carnivores. An injured carnivore that decides the odds are against it will usually run.

A hog-hunter buddy of mine has a skull on his mantle of a wild boar. The skull had to be wired back together after he put twelve .44 magnum rounds into it from almost touching distance (he dumped his rifle on the way up the tree, which is why he carried a holstered .44).

Apparently it took a couple of hours to die. It didn't LIKE getting its skull riddled with .44 impacts, but it only staggered and dazed it, and it kept coming back and trying to tear down the tree or get up into it.

That sounds like what I've heard about boars. Mean as all hell. I'nm glad that your friend got out of it in one piece.

Hippos are nasty too. I've heard they they quite routinely kill crocs and even sharks that hassle them. Save for that infamous crocodile Gustav, who is so old and big he supposedly takes down adult male hippos single-handed (single-fanged?).

I still want to do a historical-fantasy story or RPG adventure in which a sorceror of Set summons the river horses to attack someone boating down the Nile

Last time I looked, hippos accounted for more human fatalities in Africa than any of the 'Big 5'.

I'm not entirely sure I believe in 'Gustav'. Do I believe crocs can get that big? Sure. Do I believe they do? Sure. Do I think that one croc is responsible for all the deaths that are accounted to him, or so amazingly clever as all that? Not particularly.

And I certainly don't believe he tangles with adult male hippos. If anything, he has shown a distinct preference for the weakest and most ignorant prey on the continent.

Thanks for posting these essays, I'll have to check them out.

And just as a quick note here, anyone interested in Western martial arts might want to look for books like John Clement's Medieval Swordsmanship (expensive but a good buy), a translation of Hans Talhoffer's Fectbuch (German 15th century fighting manual, extensively illustrated and quite brutal!), and a book titled English Martial Arts. They're all a big interes to me as I've been slwoly writing stories set in an alternate Earth pre-Islamic Central Asia/Persian Empire with furries (mainly wolves) as the upper class lording it over human serfs and peasants -- sorry, but I got really tired of the endless 'evil humans oppressing nice-good furries' a long time ago.

Excellent—thanks for the bibliography!

I too am tired of the “good furries–bad humans” cliché, having seen it bounce around for more than twenty years. My usual answer is to mix people up, make no species particularly good or bad, but you certainly have an intriguing solution, one appropriate to the setting.

I didn't do so well with the first story or so, but with the next ones I mean to go for a mix of personalities. Though I've already pointed out the difference between the treatement received by humans who were nomads with the wolves back on the steppe, and those humans who were living in the land they took over.

And thanks again for these essays, they're very helpful.

You’re very welcome! I do my best to provide inspiration and assistance.

Also: Fooz, Kitten Tom. Kitten Tom, Fooz.

Heeheehee!

*Handshake.* XD

The big advantage of all this discussion is that others might come and read it later. Food for thought!