Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  warrior
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article offers an overview and reflection on the dynamics of the military role taking into account different security contexts and significant others. It analyses two dominant types of military roles: warrior embedded in the realistic perspective on security and peacekeeper grounded in the liberal approach. Finally, it examines the dynamics of the modern military role in the light of the internal-external security nexus. The article shows that the contemporary military role needs not only to combine warrior and peacekeeper roles but also develop some new elements in order to meet the requirements of the contemporary security context.The article begins by setting a theoretical framework that allows for an analysis of drivers of change of the military role. It then moves towards an examination of the contextual drivers of change which influence the two traditional conceptualisations of military role: a “warrior” and a “peacekeeper”. Next, the article turns towards the topic of internal-external security nexus as characteristic to the contemporary security context. Finally, it considers the contextual drivers of change within two areas of military involvement: domestic counter-terrorism operations and cyber security. The article ends with three main conclusions. Firstly, the contemporary military role requires more adaptability with regards to referent objects. Secondly, the contemporary military role requires more flexibility with regards to countering threats and the application of violence. Thirdly, the flexibility of the contemporary military role is necessitated by close collaboration with other actors who participate in provision of security.
PL
The article offers an overview and reflection on the dynamics of the military role taking into account different security contexts and significant others. It analyses two dominant types of military roles: warrior embedded in the realistic perspective on security and peacekeeper grounded in the liberal approach. Finally, it examines the dynamics of the modern military role in the light of the internal-external security nexus. The article shows that the contemporary military role needs not only to combine warrior and peacekeeper roles but also develop some new elements in order to meet the requirements of the contemporary security context.
EN
Using the humanistic theory of martial arts and martial arts sociology, the author attempts to describe and explain the relationship between social stratification and martial arts. He asks whether a person’s position in the martial arts environment is, today, dependent on social background. He asks: Who could practice with weapons, and which weapons, a hundred years ago? Who can study in the ancient fencing schools today? The analysis includes martial arts in ancient Japan, Europe and Brazil as well as today. He finds that positions originally went to those in the privileged classes or social strata. Today, this does not matter. It can be concluded that there is simply a generational transmission of interest within families. Position in the martial arts, as in many other areas, is part of a person’s long-term effort to determine their own position in society, or “position developed independently”. Martial arts are part of the farreaching democratization and leveling of society. Positions inherited from father to son arise only very rarely. This mainly now happens only in the ancient ancestral schools.
EN
Background. Fighting arts are an area of interest to physical culture researchers. One of them is Wojciech J. Cynarski, who has developed the theory of cultural dialogues and the General Theory of Fighting Arts. In The Philosophy of martial arts according to Cynarski, are found momentous solutions for the scientific humanities: 1) ontological – regarding the question of the primary non-identity of the warrior with the athlete, 2) anthropological-cultural – showing the distinctiveness of the figure of the martial arts antagonist (the warrior in the literal sense) and the agonist as an athlete and Olympian 3) scientific – explaining the immanent fusion of the philosophy of physical culture with the philosophy of martial arts, and 4) ethical – justifying the moral rightness of the knight fighting to the death in hand-to-hand combat in self-defence or as counter-strike. Problem. The author of the paper discusses and evaluates this book on the philosophy of martial arts by Prof. Wojciech J. Cynarski. The question posed here is whether the culture of martial arts contains philosophical thinking combined with the characteristics of scientific humanism. There is also a distinction made between the master of martial arts who is not the same as the master of philosophy. Method. This is a review of a set of essays by Cynarski containing philosophical thoughts about martial arts, sports and culture. Results. The author of the book in question is presented; reference is made to the content of the book by reviewing it. A substantive assessment is carried out and the text is significantly assessed. Conclusion. The Philosophy of Martial Arts according to Wojciech J. Cynarski is a valuable and recommendable book; its author is considered the epitome of chivalry, who shows through his works ways to reach a moral ideal.
PL
Najnowsza książka Wojciecha J. Cynarskiego [2022] z filozofią w tytule – w wersji polskiej i angielskiej tekstu paralelnego – musi wzbudzać pytanie o istotę samej filozofii. Nasuwać pytanie, nie o sztuki walki – czym są, bo wiadomo, że do sportu nie należą, choć niektóre zostały usportowione – lecz o filozofię właśnie, w zapytaniu, czy w kulturze sztuk walki zawiera się myślność filozoficzna o znamionach humanistyki naukowej. Nie każda bowiem myślność o wojowniku należy do filozofii, mimo że uporczywie jest tak nazywana, a tym samym nadużywana. Jak sportowiec nie tworzy filozofii, nie wiedząc nawet, że taka istnieje, tak wojownik osiągający kinetyczne mistrzostwo w miotaniu dyskiem i oszczepem, robieniu mieczem i kijem, albo tylko samym ciałem sprawnie działający, dotrzymać kroku filozoficznym myślicielom nie byłby w stanie. Mistrz sztuki walki nie jest tożsamy mistrzowi filozofii.
EN
The article approaches the culture problem between myths about extraordinary bravery of Polish men and the historical facts which are different from this stereotype. This article focuses on the roots of the myth and its permanent place in Polish culture.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy kwestii o charakterze kulturowym. Jest próbą konfrontacji mitu o szczególnej waleczności Polaków z rzeczywistością historyczną, która od tego stereotypu jest odległa. Ponadto rozważania dotyczą przyczyn ukształtowania się takiego mitu i jego stałej obecności w kulturze narodowej Polaków.
Wieki Stare i Nowe
|
2021
|
vol. 16
|
issue 21
61-70
EN
The use of chariots in warfare had a long tradition in the ancient Near East, but not in northern Europe. In many regions, chariots and the horses that pulled them were interred with wealthy leaders in their tombs. Chariots were common in Europe until around 100 BCE, although they continued to be used for much longer in Britain. Their speed and agility caused serious difficulties for the Roman infantry. Chariots were not intended to charge headlong into enemy formations. The warrior was able to fight against horsemen from the chariot’s platform, but would dismount to fight infantry soldiers on foot. In the meantime, the charioteer would move away a short distance from the battle, waiting to collect the warrior and carry him to safety, if necessary. A typical British chariot consisted of a small platform, open in the front and in the back, mounted on a wooden axle and with wheels made strong by iron tires. The charioteers sat at the front of the platform between two sideboards made of wood or wickerwork. However, the double arcade seems to be the most convincing interpretation of the evidence found on coins. In Britain, most horses were the size of the modern Dartmoor ponies and were effective in pulling chariots. The continental Gauls learned to breed larger horses capable of carrying a warrior and his weapon. The war-chariot of the Britons almost certainly did not have scythes. There is no accepted archaeological evidence concerning scythed chariots.
PL
Wykorzystywanie rydwanu w boju miało długą tradycję na starożytnym Bliskim Wschodzie, lecz nie w północnej Europie. Na jej wielu obszarach wozy bojowe i konie zaprzęgowe składano do grobu razem z arystokratycznymi przywódcami. Rydwany służyły w Europie do ok. 100 r. p.n.e., ale w Brytanii wykorzystywano je znacznie dłużej. Ich prędkość i zwrotność generowały Rzymianom poważne problemy. Nie posyłano ich do szarży przeciw liniom wroga. Wojownik walczył z rydwanu przeciw konnicy, lecz zazwyczaj schodził z pudła i walczył pieszo zarówno z jazdą, jak i piechotą. W Brytanii wiele koni wielkością przypominało współczesne pony rasy Dartmoor i nadawało się jedynie do zaprzęgania w rydwanach. Galowie z kontynentu natomiast nauczyli się hodować większe konie, które mogły dźwigać na grzbiecie wojownika w pełnym uzbrojeniu. Rydwany Brytów raczej nie posiadały kos. Nie ma żadnych dowodów archeologicznych na istnienie takich rydwanów w Brytanii.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.