same!!!!!!!!!!!

Sanatan Shastrvidya (सनातन शस्त्रविद्या) is the oldest martial art.

​@@anshumandhingan6277 nope

@@anshumandhingan6277 not the oldest but one of the oldest

Hindusim shikhism love 🇮🇳u

As someone with humble 13 years of kenjutsu I can concur this is 100% true

Then why the outnumbered British army won all the Anglo Sikh wars

@@vijayvijay4123 sikhs had become weak after Maharaja ranjit Singh death also some internal divisions were formed at the same time their own generals of sikh army joined the hands with britisher like lal Singh dogra , tej Singh dogra how were the traitors of sikh kingdom and britisher and britisher had tremendous as compared to sikh dont forget mahraja army was the strongest ones in asia as it was trained by French generals.they had powerful and cosmopolitan army .he had Muslim gunners , gurkhas , sikh and hindus which was full of brave soldiers

@@vijayvijay4123 lmao, the arrogance you have, what makes you think the british side weren't good fighter? what the original poster said applies to any skilled fighter.

Knowing distance and timing will beat speed 95% of the time.

Rob Thornton had you not played treachrous treaties and bribery.... and had it not been the for dogras who sided with you in the battle field.... British army had no chance of annexing the kingdom of PUNJAB..... you conning people waited until the lion of Punjab died.... the legendary one eyed Maharaja RANJIT SINGH..... till then you used him as a friend....

Why did you pointlessly insult him? Just for being English? LOL. They annexed Punjab (barely, by the skin of their teeth) because of lots of reasons. Not only superior strategy (in battle everyone is trying to deceive everyone else), but luck, the support of PATIALA (the Sikh state that was the enemy of the Sikh empire), the uselessness of Ranjit Singh's family, who fought and literally murdered each other, absence of central command, etc. But you put it all down to the Dogras... Why? Because you don't care. The Dogras just happen to be rivals of Jat politicians and their political party (Akali Dal) today... Hence the useless, made-up modern Sikh history comes to the fore yet again.

You're absolutely right and I don't disagree with you that the Dogras were ambitious and they played their own tune. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Empire was a proper martial Empire, but when I look at this history it seems it suffered extreme 'bad luck' setbacks after the death of the Maharaja, and I'm not sure it can all be accounted for by blaming traditional Indo warrior groups for doing what they had been doing before the Empire and before the misls period. Frankly, I find all that 'bad luck' in these modern Sikh accounts suspicious. I find it hard to account for why or how the Empire was lost. Personally, I think that the post-1857 British tactic of playing the 'honest' and 'straightforward' Sikh-as-Gungadin drum has fed into the line about the Dogras. They (the British) actually love it because it plays to their discourse, and launches us into the realm of conjectures in the subjunctive - what 'would' have happened 'if', etc. However, I don't really buy it, because everyone, including the Sikhs, was involved in subterfuge. Even by calling Ranjit Singh's kingdom an 'Empire', as we have done, plays into the mainstream narrative in which we are short of several relevant facts, to this day. It plays to the narrative by implying that the domain covered too much territory, superceding nationalism and tribalism, and it did so by an ideology and/or a code. But these are Euro ideas, not Indian. The same people who make such arguments compare Napoleon's Empire with Ranjit Singh's, which makes no sense. What I can gather is, there were a lot of players on the scene at the time and there's a lot we don't know. The Sikh armies were very strong and well-disciplined, and Ranjit Singh's domain was a very important power. So everyone had their nose in it. From the Japanese and French (both of which were on side, as I discovered accidentally from a couple of old India Office documents) to those against, there were multiple 5th columns on the ground. The British were never clever enough to pull off the destruction of the Empire alone, but by the same token, a mere army isn't enough to make a nation - it needs leadership, and the Maharaja's family failed spectacularly to provide it.

@@bkhahra So a white person shows respect...and you insult him. You are a coward. Unfit for the name singh.

These guys are with Britishers at that time thats why indian army has Sikh regiment, traitors become heroes because of vote bank politics , they are boot lickers of british

@@mankirat18 why even say that. Ur a Lul 😂

Sab humse sikh ke humare gand mar reh sare

Kalaripayattu . Hinting a word

@@callmedaddyT1 bilkul theek आकलन किया और हम तलवार पकड़कर केवल फोटो खिंचवाते हैं

Kalairpyattu as well

It will always be alive although most people use guns but there is something about swords which is very 🔥🔥🔥🔥

@Tangent of circle. only 3000 BC kids will remember.

So brave that the British kicked their asses for over 200 years.

​​@@hectordirector6149first of all we're not Hindus secondly we did not have guns at that time , now if you want fights we are always ready for you , but our ancestors told us Always help people and don't be shy to raise your sword against injustice.

@@hectordirector6149 British kicked whole worlds ass with their best quality, Trechery and lack of morals ….bravo.

​@@hectordirector6149So brave that British didn't have a spine to fight them fairy and head on. Instead they used manipulation, betrayal to fight Sikhs. If there were no traitors, British would have been humiliated multiple times. Thats also why British didn't even dare to attack while Ranjith Singh was alive. British is so weak that it could only defeat Sikhs through treachery and no other way.

​@@zforzombie9595You are a Hindu whether you believe it or not. Sikhs fought for hindustaan and they considered themselves as hindustanis. If you disagree, then you are not a Sikh.

+Diego Gonzalez It is remarkably similar, but it makes sense as the Tulwar is more akin to Medieval European blades, despite it's sabre blade, the hilt makes Drawing and Pushing cuts that deliver horrific wounds preferable as you can't cut from the wrist very well with one.

The set up reminded me of Scottish sword and buckler, especially with holding the knife/dirk in the buckler hand, but there seems to be a different attitude on parries/guards than I'm used to seeing in European systems.

yeah its really cool there is only a certain amount of movements the human body can do so similarities in swordsmanship are gonna happen I guess

yeah its really cool there is only a certain amount of movements the human body can do so similarities in swordsmanship are gonna happen I guess

All sword arts have similarities. There are a limited number of ways to optimally stab or cut someone with a long piece of sharp metal.

Ah the so called multiple arts guys..show us some of ur videos

East r west india has the best

Your father is totally wrong. Coming from the mouth of yet another warrior clan's country boy.

1 man who fought in both anglo sikh wars and was almost burnt alive kept this art intact. akali sawan singh bhangru

@@ramangrewal4445 You must be right. The Anglo-Sikh wars occurred due to poor judgement of Maharaja Ranjit and signing a treaty with the British as soon as they entered. The British never honoured any (Punjab, Bengal etc.).

Rakesh Sahoo The Sikhs came from Guru Nanak Dev Ji who was a light of God, Waheguru, Allah etc. (A great analogy is that if you take a glass of water out of the ocean, it is still the same water as the ocean. Guru Nanak Dev Ji was the glass of water out of the ocean.) Guru Nanak Dev Ji was never Hindu because as soon as he was able to understand the principles of Hinduism, he rejected it. The caste, the superstition, the rituals, he rejected all of that. You can’t say that Christians are Jews because Mary was originally a Jew. You also can’t say that Muslims are Jews because they both came from Abraham. Also the way of the Khalsa Panth, the warrior tactics, the strength, that all came from Waheguru, God, Allah whatever you want to call Waheguru. To be a Khalsa and become part of the Khalsa army, you need to first become a Sikh. All of the Hindus that joined the ranks of the Khalsa army first CONVERTED to Sikhi before becoming part of the Khalsa army. So don’t try and gain clout and respect from false information.

भाई जी भोहोत आच्छे विचार है आपके 👍👍

Bruh he said Muslims are brothers too did you forget this? All humans are siblings of god.

lol

"I walk a different path."

nice eye!

They had this character Nemo from these Nihang Singhs from Punjab India. An Indian actor Naseerudin Shah Played the character. So, true that.

Old comment, but he was my favorite character. The character's combat actions were amazing!

MegaRazzzz There are countless amounts of weapons to train with when it comes to Shastar Vidiya. Some of the most outlandish looking weapons too.

Yea that's what I'm saying. Also, I can't say how effective a broadsword would be against rampaging war elephants.

MegaRazzzz And elephants wore armor with blades attached to their tusks. So...yeah.

MegaRazzzz what warrior are you talking about Knight Templar?

Well no.. I was just referring to some comments here who were comparing very different types of weapons to each other. Wasn't talking about any specific warrior.

This martial art is on the brink of extinction in India.

U shud watch South Indian style of swordmanship too....watch Urumi fight of Kalaripayattu

This also kinda reminds me about the viking sword and shield style fighting used in the norse sagas.

kenshiro100cracked Its Because Indonesian Silat Derives from Gatka and SHastart Vidiya

ਸ਼ਾਨ ਖਾਲਸਾ um, I know that already. I was Talking about the VIKINGS sword and shield style.

@@kenshiro100cracked no way. almost like biomechanics worked the same around the world :D

Albrecht Shnoodle You realize that the buckler was for duel purposes and urban self-protection not for warfare. So in formation you would hide behind a shield or behind a long ass weapon like a pike or a spear... a sword is a sidearm first and foremost not a primary weapon of war. The rest of what you say is fine tho :D

Good observations

@@jdtremblay2331 mostly correct except that bucklers were often the choice defensive tool of archers and crossbow men if forced into melee combat. It doesn't take up the space that a shield would and doesn't interfere with their shooting.

The only point I would disagree with is expecting to get cut in a sword fight. In my personal experience, a good cut more often than not spells doom one way or another. While cuts to the limbs (by far the most common blow with most cut and thrust weapons) aren't immediately lethal, they will usually disable that limb and prevent you from effectively fighting. In addition, for this very reason in our Bolognese tradition we are taught over and over again to either immediately retreat after delivering a successful blow, or if favorable deliver another blow "for our safety" (or in some cases a third) before hastily retreating. While afterblows are certainly possible, they aren't common with proper technique. In addition, thick clothing or textile armor typically served as the base line armor of many cultures (only the poorest would go without it in some degree), and it's presence prevents weak cuts (and many stronger ones) from wounding the wearer. Edit: I must also disagree with the use of a buckler as defense against ranged attacks. Yes it's possible, of course it is. But it's very, very risky to attempt to block an arrow or bolt with a buckler, targe, or other similar very small shields. Not to say I don't love the buckler, it is an amazing defensive weapon, but it is designed to deflect the attacks of a melee weapon, and to control the weapon of your opponent. The small size is a compromise made so that it can be worn at the belt when not in use (great for day to day life) and also so that you gain more control of your opponent's blade in a parry. It also reduces the vision loss cause by a larger shield. For deflecting ranged attacks, the only reliable solution is stout armor, or a sizeable shield. While possible to deflect an arrow with the buckler, it is too risky to rely upon, especially when dealing with more than one arrow. With a larger shield, there is no guesswork or reflex, as long as you hold your shield.

Aa mera lund choos

It is a muslim mughal sword,hindus used straight ones

@@simmialam7377 really 😳😂😂😂

@@simmialam7377 please...

@@simmialam7377 no not always

Wait isn't this a muslim sword?,seriously in the rest of the world tulwar and pulwar are considered as islamic swords for their curves and also because it was made during the Mughal period.

A claymore? Thays completely different type..i think u confused it with the broadsword..and broadswords are not called claymores fyi

sabers most certainly are swords.

I'm not sure what is being debated here. I know a tulwar is a type of saber, which is a type of sword.

Okay Whiterun Guard we also use straight swords too XD. Which is a Khanda.

I'm a redguard and I approve this video

That alikr warrior reference

As the teacher noted, there are many styles of swordsmanship within this art. The sword and shield are held as one often, just not here.

Yeah it was very brutal and very effective indeed!

+jpogi gtxcr1 I believe it's called "Mojari", Kinda royal thing ..

Those sandals got hidden pointy blades.

@@Nyckaka yes

you can search as punjabj jutti

I literally laughed hard on your comment

+79ward The Sash wrapped around their waist is literally a long piece of cloth.

That is not a sword and a buckler, but a sabre and a buckler. That is not a sword, but a sabre (or cutlass), because its use is to cut. I don't know why people don't make the difference between swords and sabres... Swords are made, principally, to stab, but you can use it to cut. Roperas (rapiers) are swords. Sabres (cutlass) are made principally to cut, but you can use it to stab. Katanas are sabres. Sorry, my english is not very good and cannot explain me as I want. Thank you to read me.

Lorenzo de Arriba Rodero I can say It is a Kılıç maybe you can call shamshir ( asian style sword /recurve ) another one cutlass style Yatagan , Kukri .Asian nations did not use straight swords as europe.recurve style usable than straight because of horsmen warrior in history.

looks similar to the Cossack Sabre and style. I have read that the Sikhs have Scythian origins (migrated to India) different from south Indian Tamils who were native to India, I wonder in that had influence on their sabre style given Old Scythia's proximity to the Caucasus&Cossacks.

CIIR world calling as " Caucasus&Cossacks." they are Tribe of Türk .We are calling Kafkas and Kazak Türks .

Arent cossacks ethnic slavs? I thought only the Tatars were Turkic (Nogai, Crimean, Lipka tatars) or around Tatarstan

Yes!!!

it's Sanatani shastra vidya. means Indian weapon science.

His look is amazing

the guy with the "small dagger" would still win against the guy with 4 swords if the guy holding the dagger was a sikh

The beard in this context signifies that he's a Sikh. Obviously men from other cultures have beards too but Sikhs don't cut theirs at all so their beards are very full compared to many other beard styles. The OP seems to be suggesting that if you saw some random dude with four swords, that'd be a lot less fearsome than to suddenly realise that a Sikh with four swords is bearing down on you.

Don't forget the assorted weapons poking out his hat.

badlandskid shut ur mouth racist people

Sikhs never kill their friends

@@GS-ku2gz it was a joke

It's a demonstration, not sparring. How would you be able to discern enything from that?

MKultra81 I do historical sword fighting so I understand the practical considerations of how sword fights work and nothing that he is showing makes any kind of sense at all - its like he's trying to do some kind of knife fighting except he happens to have a sword - his opponents make these big slow heavy swings with their swords but with his sword, same kind of sword, he moves it quickly - what if his opponent just used it properly? although he doesnt actually use his sword at all like you would use a tulwar - he keeps going to stab the younger lad with the curved part - you do not stab with Tulwars, they're the wrong shape and balance for that. Everyone says that he is a fraud and looking at his technique it is really obvious that he is.

I've spent a little time training with these traditions. What you see is indicative of a very western mindset. Which is fine, but what you are taking from it is somewhat backwards. He is not demonstrating speedy manuevers because that is not the basis of the art. What is being shown is not about speed or even flashy technique, it is about positioning, it is about Geometry, it is about awareness and fluidity. What you must understand is that there is a different mentality about how Indian culture views concerning how martial prowess is actually created, versus the western mentality. You can see this even in the physical forms of the practitioners; you will rarely find a large, muscular, outwardly focused Indian or Sikh martial artist. They do not believe that physical strength is the determining factor in combat, but rather mental strength. While this may seem counter-intuitive to you, there are a number of British and European treatises and first-hand accounts which mention just how deadly and effective the Sikh and Indian fighters were, even with their smaller stature and lack of emphasis on external technique or strength. The Western mentality to avoid defeat is to learn more techniques, become faster, stronger, quicker, tighter in a sense. To overwhelm the opponent with technique or speed, to do something they didn't see coming. The Eastern mentality is to become more fluid, more relaxed, more aware, more calm; to be able to maintain composure no matter how fast or technical your opponent, to and to use the clarity that composure grants to achieve victory. What you are watching is mental conditioning. What is being trained is fluidity, timing, positioning, and awareness. If your positioning is perfect and you maintain your mental composure, it doesn't matter how fast your opponent moves. That's the belief.

Cernnunos5 that may well be the belief but I'm afraid it doesnt translate into victory in real life - to elaborate; basically in a competative environment you have to stick to the most effective techniques to remain competative - I'll admit there is a poetry to that artistic mindset and of course if that is the kind of technique and mindset that your opponents are using then being better at just those things will be enough but when you take a wider view that encompasses more competative arts they suddenly start to fall short. This is why, in the victorian era, you find British and American and French people commenting on the unscientific nature of eastern arts - the answer to eastern openhanded martial arts was usually just to grapple them and pulverise them and the answer to eastern swordsmanship was just to keep them at a distance with a bayonet or longer thrusting sword, with a martial art that was based on killing people from a distance whilst staying as safe as possible. As for the skill of these warriors, there is a reason they kept losing wars at the time.

hotsteamypudding "Unscientific" does not mean "Ineffective." Keep in mind the term "Scientific" is often used to describe a methodology which is believed to be superior in a dogmatic fashion; Einstein's work was deemed "Unscientific, metaphysical nonsense" by the "Scientific" establishment of the time, until it became clear just how effective his theories were in describing and predicting the phenomena with which it dealt. Always losing battles? The only battles they ever lost were against the British, against which they also had victories. Do you know anything about Sikh history? You do realize there were wars between the British and the Sikhs, yes? You do realize the Sikhs proved themselves equal at the least to the British army? They did lose the Anglo-Sikh war, but in every battle the Sikhs as individual warriors proved themselves equals or betters, folding only to the inexhaustible resources and subversive political tactics of the British Empire. The British simply had a lot more resources, and they used those resources to buy Sikh leaders and Generals. At the battle of Mudki, the Sikhs were outnumbered, and fought a very experienced force of British militarymen. Over 2,000 British were killed, including officers, and the Sikhs only retired after British reinforcements arrived. At the next battle in Ferozeshah, the British actually were outnumbered. The Sikhs did end up losing, but it was later found that both of the Sikh commanders had been bought off by the British, with Tej Singh retreating his forces without cause, when the battle was swinging in Sikh favor. The fighters under the command of Tej Singh were the elite of the Sikh forces and the Akali. Even so, it is recorded that the British "Barely Won." Granted, General Gough's tactics were criticized. After this battle, the (bought off) Sikh Generals Lal and Tej Singh retreated and allowed the British force to be reinforced and re-armed, even though they knew the British would not be able to achieve victory had the Sikhs gone on the offensive. After being re-armed and reinforced, the British again went on the offensive and ended the 1st Anglo-Sikh war. This victory was at least partly due to British Political Subversion and the purchasing of Sikh generals. It was noted that the most elite of the Sikh warriors were retreated by their Generals and never saw combat at the final 2 battles of the war. Even so, the Sikhs who did fight proved their effectiveness, and there are many accounts from that period of just how fearsome and effective they were as fighters. General Gough himself said ""Policy precluded me publicly recording my sentiments on the splendid gallantry of our fallen foe, or to record the acts of heroism displayed, not only individually, but almost collectively, by the Sikh sardars and the army; and I declare were it not from a deep conviction that my country's good required the sacrifice, I could have wept to have witnessed the fearful slaughter of so devoted a body of men." The system of warfare these Sikhs studied is the same system you are watching in this video. It never became a sport like fencing did in the west. It has always been maintained as a fighting art for war. Irregardless of the fact that they lost the war; you have no grounds on which to say the techniques and mindset are "bullshit." You simply do not understand what you see. Go study it. At the very least learn the history. These people also won many wars. In the second Anglo-Sikh war, they won many battles against the British. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_involving_the_Sikh_Empire

As he mentioned Sanatan Shastravidya and gave references to Lord "Garud" or Devotee "Nandi"... It's a developed over millennia with use common to Hindus(Sanatan Dharma) - Jats,Rajput's etc and also Sikhs. It dates way before Sikhism but Sikh Brothers carry on the legacy along with them.

Knight Solaire I like turtles

Thaulopi And the pigeons unanimously voted yes.

+Knight Solaire Get a life.

Thaulopi sikh do sat shiri akal not namaste

That's how many duels ended - both participants wounded and possibly dying. At least if they weren't wearing armor.

***** true, but when blow trading appears to be inevitable even in choreographed training sessions, its clear that the technique is quite flawed.

thats the name of the game, if it's real people are more cautious, instead of rushing in to try and kill the opponent you try to wait for the perfect moment, he just shows the posibilities. There's a big difference between showing the possibilities and fighting an actual battle.

ow and hitting someone with enough force, can throw his momentum slightly off making the blow miss etc.

***** Sparring is never the same as fighting for your life; i've experience neither but anyone sat there saying this guy's technique is crap, this and that, should wipe the floor with him in a duel. Which just wouldn't happen.

+Afroswine Hoggintons Yes, with the supposedly sharp sword.

Ahaha I saw that

Sikhs fart during fight to confuse their enemies.

I thought that was why he had 4 pommels sticking out from his sash.

Kamesh Kannan U shit ur pants when u see a Sikh attacking u in ur nightmares with a single sword

Gurpreet Lubana ..wahe guru ji da khalsa. ..wahe guru ji di fatheh. ..jo bole so nihal. ..sat sree akal😊

badlandskid no when Sikhs walk the sound is much like a big elephant coming towards you.

+AJ Usog They do turn based combat in India.

It’s a demo. If you ever have seen legit sparring it’s very fast.

хуяки

Добрыня Никитич English me bol bc

Yeah agreed I also admirer knowledge on the topic also.

Take a look at gatka, pretty much India's equivalent to HEMA.

The curved brit saver (and it's american equivalent) is based off Turkish cavalry sabers. In fact the marines still use a saber today which I believe is called an 'ottoman' saber.

Ian Hollier Thanks for the info.

A well made katar can slice an arm halfway off at the bicep. But like Ian said, it's better for stabbing.

ww2 sikhs defeated Japanese kamikaze samurai in the jungles of Burma and india. sikhs drove them back into the south China Sea where they came from

That was well past the end of the real Samurai (1860s)....my money would still be on the Sikh.

That sounds interesting, I need to research this!

to bad this guy is full of shit

I'm not so glad about that. Perhaps if they had, the bullshit on both sides would have been filtered out by being battle-tested.

​@@mankirat18: He he he.....hasi chhut gayi....ha ha ha....nice comment