If a country was colonized by another country, does that mean that the colonizer's martial art is superior?

Question

Ok, I just noticed my typo up there. It says "American's (Kajunkenbo, MMA, Boxing?, etc....)"

What I meant was "Americans (Kajunkenbo, MMA, Boxing?, etc....)"

I do not mean that the American's martial arts helped the Filipinos win the war. I meant that they helped the Philippines in war.

Kajunkenbo was influenced by FMA?? That's new info for me. Thanks! I guess the American's picked up something new while they were in the Philippines.

And...martial arts did matter back then...remember feudal Japan where there were samurais and ninjas? Well, they really did man-to-man fighting. Even sword-to-sword fighting. Like, slashing and stuff.

Answer 1

No, it doesn't mean a martial art is better, you can be the best martial artist in that era, but if you had a rifle faced at you from a distance, it hardly means squat.

Answer 2

Your question doesn't make any sense, the war has nothing to do on how a country is conquered or how its martial arts is inferior or superior to another.

To answer your question, you should READ MORE on the history of the Philippines and its people. The Philippines was colonized by the Spaniards, when the Philippines was "discovered"  by Magellan, back then there was no country and mostly small colonies headed by Datu's (kings),plus it did not help that they were at war with each other all the time for food and land. So the Philippines was already vulnerable to attack back then. It was easy picking for any colonizers for we did not have a solid army when the Japanese attacked, we had to rely on the Americans.

Please read more of the Philippines history and I hope you find the truth.

Answer 3

No, it means the winning side had a better army.  

That's like asking if the army with better rifles always wins a war.  The answer is "no" it depends on tactics, strategy, and sometimes dumb luck.

Answer 4

The answer is no.

There's a lot more to fighting wars than simple man-to-man martial arts techniques.

And kajukenbo borrows heavily from FMA.

Answer 5

the japanese philipines example has nothing to do with martial arts as you mean them.

The japanese had an impressive war machine.

Their army was a band of dedicated fanatics. their attitude was that losing and being captured were unforgivable.

the filipino's and americans were overwhelmed by superior forces.

lots of guerillas in the philipines continued to fight even after the official ceasefire there.

Answer 6

Not necessarily, but I think that Japanese martial arts tend to be better anyway.

Answer 7

The Koreans kicked the Japanese out does that make Tae Kwan Do superior to Wing Chun Kung Fu? I don't think so. It takes more than a good martial art to win a war. It takes many things to come together and the good leadership to take advantage of it. The art of war and conquest could be considered a martial art in a broad sense of the definition. In the narrow sense as defined by what is typically meant by individual styles of fighting hand to hand I don't think it matters in the overall scheme of things.  

Answer 8

Britain conqured India, parts of china, half of africa and had the biggest empire in the world. Does that mean Britain had the best martial arts.

There isn't much an army with swords can do against an air force that can carpet bomb a whole country. Wars are won through firepower technology and manpower.

I'd like to see you tell John LaCoste or any of his contemporaries that they were conquered.