Gehazi:
Two benefits of a teacher that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread:
1. A teacher usually teaches in the context of a school, which is quite different from learning from books. A school has other students, at various levels of development, so you can see where the training and discipline is leading. There is such a huge difference between the master and a beginning student that you might not appreciate much of what the master is doing, or how it is possible to bridge that gap. Most students will never become masters, so it is helpful to watch and take instruction from other people at intermediate levels. Also, in a school you have training/sparring partners and the discipline of group exercises that can be boring if done alone.
2. An instructor will correct your errors, so they are not perpetuated through practice. A book can't do that no matter how well it is written, because a book can't anticipate every possible error or misunderstanding. My tai chi master once told us of some of his students who learned the initial tai chi set, left the school and practiced on their own for a couple of years. When they returned to the school they had to unlearn mistakes that crept into their practice. The old adage, "practice makes perfect" also means that practice will "perfect" your errors.
You might be able to learn individual moves from a book, and perhaps that's enough for the rudiments of self defense. However, the transitions between moves are more subtle, harder to explain in words, and can be as important as the individual moves. It is very easy to find yourself off-balance and vulnerable after delivering a strike or blocking an opponent's strike. Most struggles are not settled by a single blow.
I agree with the comments above that books or videos are best thought of as aids to memory, and of course are most useful for people who don't have the opportunity to have an instructor.
The questions that you raised about military combat are a different topic altogether. In a war between armies there are many factors besides martial arts skills and weaponry. There is the level of organization and communication within a force, the quality of leadership, differences in terrain and environment that might favor one side or another, supply chains and the ability to feed, clothe and equip an army over time. There are political factors, such as the will of one side or the other to continue a struggle in the face of bad odds, high costs and human losses. There is the size and productive capability of the country behind the army. There is also the fact that over time competing armies will tend to adopt (or adapt to) the more successful techniques of each other, capture weapons from the other side, etc. There are alliances with third parties that might help one side either directly or indirectly (e.g., by supplying weaponry or allowing free movement through their territories). The list goes on and on. The simple scenario of peasants armed with guns versus martial arts experts doesn't prove much and is an oversimplification of events even in cases that might seem relevant, such as the Chinese "Boxers' Rebellion."
Two benefits of a teacher that I don't think have been mentioned in this thread:
1. A teacher usually teaches in the context of a school, which is quite different from learning from books. A school has other students, at various levels of development, so you can see where the training and discipline is leading. There is such a huge difference between the master and a beginning student that you might not appreciate much of what the master is doing, or how it is possible to bridge that gap. Most students will never become masters, so it is helpful to watch and take instruction from other people at intermediate levels. Also, in a school you have training/sparring partners and the discipline of group exercises that can be boring if done alone.
2. An instructor will correct your errors, so they are not perpetuated through practice. A book can't do that no matter how well it is written, because a book can't anticipate every possible error or misunderstanding. My tai chi master once told us of some of his students who learned the initial tai chi set, left the school and practiced on their own for a couple of years. When they returned to the school they had to unlearn mistakes that crept into their practice. The old adage, "practice makes perfect" also means that practice will "perfect" your errors.
You might be able to learn individual moves from a book, and perhaps that's enough for the rudiments of self defense. However, the transitions between moves are more subtle, harder to explain in words, and can be as important as the individual moves. It is very easy to find yourself off-balance and vulnerable after delivering a strike or blocking an opponent's strike. Most struggles are not settled by a single blow.
I agree with the comments above that books or videos are best thought of as aids to memory, and of course are most useful for people who don't have the opportunity to have an instructor.
The questions that you raised about military combat are a different topic altogether. In a war between armies there are many factors besides martial arts skills and weaponry. There is the level of organization and communication within a force, the quality of leadership, differences in terrain and environment that might favor one side or another, supply chains and the ability to feed, clothe and equip an army over time. There are political factors, such as the will of one side or the other to continue a struggle in the face of bad odds, high costs and human losses. There is the size and productive capability of the country behind the army. There is also the fact that over time competing armies will tend to adopt (or adapt to) the more successful techniques of each other, capture weapons from the other side, etc. There are alliances with third parties that might help one side either directly or indirectly (e.g., by supplying weaponry or allowing free movement through their territories). The list goes on and on. The simple scenario of peasants armed with guns versus martial arts experts doesn't prove much and is an oversimplification of events even in cases that might seem relevant, such as the Chinese "Boxers' Rebellion."
