Discussion of universal (?) sword principles

If the intention is to research historical documents and present your findings. you cannot present such wide assuptions such as the Japanese the Chinese and the Korean swordsmen were impressed by Western swordwork.

Or that the Japanese used a European sabre from around 1873 to around 1939 based on French and Prussian techniques.

The katana and kenjutsu replaced for almost fifty years? by those who refused to discard it in the face of the gun a far more potent weapon. Even to the point of some Daimyo attempting to have the gun banned in japan.

Even after the battle of Nagashino where Oda Nobunaga proved once and for all that the day of the sword as a battlefield weapon (it never had been the primary weapon) was over it was still revered all the way forward to the kamikazi carrying it when it had no practical value other than symbolic.

As for European swordwork the rather arrogant attitude was that it placed too much thought on defence with the blocks and parries while the samurai were prepared to die to "win" a sword fight.

regards koyo

 

I feel rather strongly on the distortion of historical "facts" based upon my research into aikido history.

I found that those in power had attempted to deny the close association with Daito Ryu to the point of having photographs doctored to erase caligraphy that identified O Sensei ueshiba as a Daito Ryu instructor.

Also stating that O Sensei only attanded a few classes rather than extended training over a number of years.

I feel as a martial arts instructor I have an obligation to pass on the art in as unbiased and true to it's nature manner as possible. any historical research must be approached in the same manner.

regards koyo

Below the original photograph that shows O Sensei seated before the Daito ryu scroll that had been erased in more modern "versions"

 

I agree and sometimes you need to have generic terms to group similar information. However, your research seems to be largely based on speculation rather than any evidence. The argument you have present is that europeans were training Japanese in late 1800s so there would be influence in swordsmanship. Well, more probably the western advisors would have been training in modern military theory. i.e. Firearms, artillery, force organisation, logistics and strategy. In the 1880s asking a western advisor to teach swordsmanship would have been an strange request indeed since most officers carried a side arm rather than a sword.

The Bear.

 

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=94884

A short thread on swordforum.com

 

Thanks, guys:

Unfortunately, though, you are demonstrating the very attitudes that I am seeking to address albeit each in his own way. Lets remember the period that we are speaking of.... at least in Japan.

Coming out of years of isolation, the Japan of the late 19th Century was severely divided between staunch conservatives and liberals. The conservatives thoughts that the restoration of the monarchy would aid their efforts to keep things as they had been for centuries. Instead, the restored emperor showed a definite predilection for change resulting in the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877 (see: Tom Cruise). All through the early decades of the 20th Century ultra-conservatives fought to confound the development of Democracy and organized labor in Japan. Budo and Bujutsu was romanticized (see: Nitobe) and militarism as a method of Foreign Policy precipitated WW II. Now, what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

The Meiji Emperor retained the services of European cadre to train his new army and the curriculum of the Military Academies reflect this. The question is whether the European methods had any lasting influence on Japanese practices. We know that bayonet training melded with Japanese spear training. We know that jujutsu was influenced by Western thought to produce Judo. What we need to do is examine that 50 year span to really understand just how much or how little European practices impacted Japanese and Korean practices. Thoughts?

BTW: Regarding the nature of studies at Toyama Academy, I drew on Guy Power's essay on his website. Arguably the best informed on the subject, Power Sensei reports the following.
"The students would study tactics drawn from French and later Prussian models, marksmanship, calisthenics, French and Prussian swordsmanship using the European sabre, military music, and other normal military subjects. Moreover, research and experiments were conducted with fire teams who performed tests with machine guns."
Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Thanks, Ludde. Great thread. That helps!

BTW: I think these links and the resulting pics were extremely helpful.

http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/civilian.htm
http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/military.htm

BTW 2: Here is an interesting description of the Japanese military unit including its organization and equiptment (circa 1877)

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/satsuma.html


Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I'm not sure of what relevance or even how accurate it is to say that Jujutsu was influenced by Western thought to produce Judo... I mean anyone can make the argument that ALL martial arts were influenced by Western thought at some point.

Also, to say that we know bayonet training melded with Japanese spear training, IMHO, can be misleading in that it sort of down-plays that weapons training is not static but it adapts to the needs and functions of the time. You've got guns with bayonets, you are going to adapt to use them effectively in combat because you don't have any other weapon in your hand. Even the fact there were bayonets was an adaption when it was found that soldiers needed something to give them an advantage in close in combat... the bayonet was an after thought or addition that was made after guns were already being used in the battlefield.

Even the history of the Japanese sword making reflected the adaption to the times and change in functions. This went with how the weapons were used. After the Mongol invasions, Japanese swords and weapons were made with heavier backing so that they could be more effective against heavier armor as worn by the invaders.

When a few centuries later it seemed that mobility was going to be more important (armor was made lighter or not worn), the swords were used more as primary weapons (previously it was spear and bow used more)... the fighting was more close in, the sword was shortened and worn blade up, and two swords were worn (longer and shorter)... this to me was like the gun-slinger days of Japan because drawing the sword and cutting with it were developed into one motion (rather than draw sword and then cut with it as two separate motions previously).

In all, the particular details changed, but the principles remained the same, IMHO. The point being that as the weapon changed the fighting methods adapted, and conversely, as the fighting methods changed, the weapons adapted.

Anyway, whatever influences that came from Western sabre, etc. might have basically gone away when the weapons changed back to a Japanese type swords in 1934 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_gunto ).

 

When I am digging around, I tend to look for people who may have been actively involved. In the case of Jujutsu, I need to go with Kano's report regarding his own motives. In like manner, reports concerning the Sino-Japanese War (1894) tell a very different story regarding performance. Apparently the use of the lance and the bayonet were much more important in the Russo-Japanese War (1904). The conflict in Manchuria after 1932 brings up yet another view.

One of the toughest stumbling-blocks I encounter when I dig around like this it the nationalistic fervor of the countries and cultures involved. Certainly the Japanese would never want to own, publicly, that for a moment in time (however brief) they dabbled with an item other than their iconographic Katana. In like manner the Chinese were absolutely astounded when, in the middle of the 19th Century countries like France and GB beat them at war..... on their own soil! And I can guarentee you that if you go to Korea today and ask around none knows anything about Koreans (22,000) serving in the Korean Police Force during the Occupation as well as thousands who volunteered for service and attended Japanese training for service in the KANTO Army. My own point is not to purposely drag-up embarrassing material but to identify how these martial practices developed and why. If I had accepted the "common wisdom" over the last few decades I'm afraid I would have to surrender rational thought in exchange for believing in Korean "mountain spirits" and Japanese KAMI and TENGUE. Ain't gonna happen. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Bruce your continually making these statements without offering a single shred of evidence to back it up. So I'm afriad I'll have to say that I've allowed you to explore your argument far enough in this thread and can we please get back on topic.

The Bear.

 

I'm not contesting your ideas, I'm only pointing out that the actions from those ideas were specific to the environment at the time. For instance, during the time that Kano created Judo (and he was somewhere around 22 years old when he first did), many of the Samurai ways were being suppressed by the Japanese government and while at the same time there was trade and a new openness to the Western nations. Although it was still limited exposure to the West, it surely did have its influences.

Please consider HOW knowledge was passed on to each successive generation. In many cases we have more contemporary scholars/historians that are basically taking a time machine back to the day and re-engineering the techniques. I don't think this is wrong, but it is kind of like if my mother went to Japan and started talking in Japanese... people would think she was speaking some really old dialect because her Japanese was learned prior to WW II. It's like someone coming into a modern day business and instead of asking where the bathroom is, they ask where the outhouse is.

On the other hand, one of my teachers told me that there was concern that secrets would be stolen if in writing, so things were passed on often by word of mouth to family members. He told me (and you can argue against his credibility, that's fair enough) that what was written down or drawn were not techniques but principles. The principles were important to write down so they were not to be forgotten, but how specifically those principles were applied was communicated through word of mouth.

He told me he had seen some old family scrolls and the translation of them were basically principles, not techniques.

In other words, don't look at old techniques, except to learn how they worked and for what function, but instead look at the principles. You might have a lineage that goes back hundreds of years... but it is the principles that persist, the techniques may have been lost, changed, re-invented, etc. to match the times.

I'm sure there is something to Western sword principles that can be found in old writings... as for techniques... I don't believe there is much evidence that they are there or even if they are, that they have not been changed.

Another point is that because of this nationalistic fervor, many of the links that you might be seeking are no longer present is Japan. What I'm saying is that these people left Japan (or were forced to leave). Try instead looking at how Japanese swordmanship has come to be developed in America by Japanese immigrants, for example. Here is where you might see the remains of Western influences.

 

Bear, I really don't understand what you are having a difficult time with.

The theme for this thread is the universality of sword techniques, right? Have I missed something? Perhaps these contributions are rubbing you the wrong way because you only care to examine the subject from a particular POV. Could I be right?

How about if I give you a parallel to consider.

The Okinawans were a significant intermediary in the transmission of Chinese Boxing to Japan by taking the Southern Chinese traditions and mixing them with the indigenous techniques of the culture. Later this method was "sanitized and transmitted to Japan and later to the rest of the world. We get a lot more out of the end product (Karate) by understanding how this process occurred.

In like manner, Korea has been between China and Japan and things have passed back and forth. We will get a lot more out of the Korean techniques when A.) they are examined in their own respect and B.) the Koreans, themselves quit making up s*** and learn to appreciate their own culture for what it is.

Now...... I don't have a problem with European sword. Whatever floats a person's boat, ne? But I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of swordsmanship and I don't think that beating on people is the only way to understand what we got here.

If my approach is a bit high-brow or intellectual I don't know what to tell you. As far as the conclusions I might be drawing let me tell you that I am way ahead of you in that respect and have started to add citations and references to my timeline so that people can see where I am getting my information from. In the meantime I suppose I can cite every declarative statement I make but it sure is going to slow the discussion down.

Personally..... IMHO, I think you just have a bug up your butt about me....and I am afraid there is not much I can do to help you there. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

The influence of european methods on toyama ryu is probable, but very small. There is only one position that is clearly european in the original Gunto soho (a bit like this: http://www.westernindependentgrays.org/images/sword_drill3.jpg). The rest is japanese in origin and was developed by Nakayama Hakudo and Sasaburo Takano, both being exponents of koryu.

Now, from the 1870 up to 1925, the japanese army used the standard european sabre techniques, but the katana was reintroduced for two main reasons; the two handed sword was seen as superior in close quarters and the army wanted to boost the nationalist spirit of it's troops by comparing them to samurai. Same thing went on with bayonet or Juken, at first it was european methods, then it got changed for the same reasons, using mainly Ito ryu and Hozoin ryu spearwork, while dismounted bayonet was taken from Toda ryu kenjutsu.

 

I think what Bear is getting at is that the thread is ment to discuss universal sword principles rather than sword history.

Example. Here is the kessa giri from Toyama Ryu. THE KISAKI IS STOPPED WITHIN THE SHOULDER WIDTH OF THE OPPONENT. If the sword cuts much deeper this usually
donates tameshigiri..test cutting.

Similarly in aiki ken we shall not let the kisaki drift over the centreline when cutting which would leave us open to a counter.Inexperienced swordsmen often make this mistake.

regards koyo

 

Koyo, what you said about the point of the sword is also true in the Chinese sword work in Tai Chi, IME.

Except now I'm wondering how some of the twirling motions done with longer swords fit in with these principles

 

I would't know Rebel. We don't have any twirling motions.


regards koyo

 

While not exactly "twirling motions" there is a fair amount of room in sword practice to allow for movements designed to clear space and keep the opponent (or opponents) at a larger distance than if you were stationary...It's not quite what I have seen done in Chinese arts, but I would guess that the principle is similar to it, keeping people away by using "wild" motions...It has a small place in some Koryu...Along with other more "serious" distraction methods..

 

The twirling motions were introduced to me as a form of wrist strengthening exercise. I'm not sure how they fit into actual combat with a sword.

Note: I can say that from FMA, the twirling motion can be used with longer sticks to get a snapping motion useful for blunt weapons (not cutting weapons). You can really nail someone in the wrist with one of these and possibly break their hand.


-----------------
I wonder what Koryu bujutsu these movements came from: :evil:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8BcH4biGUM"]YouTube - XMA - Katana Exhibition[/ame]

Just kidding

 

In aiki jo there is the happo giri (katate hachi no ji gaeshi) which is a figure eight cut. It COULD be thought of as a twirling motion but is in fact very powerful and could easily break a bone.

there are also quite large sweeping motions similar to naginata used "to clear a space".

(That video does not deseve comment on this thread.It simply shows what can be done to corrupt the true meaning martial arts)

regards koyo

 

Queen...Circa; Early 1980's...Undoubtedly..."Queen" was a branch school that seperated from "Village People" in the late 1970's and proceeded to create an amazing blend of twirling, camp, flashy and utterly KILLER techniques designed to fluster and destroy all enemies..Everywhere...At once..It's just about watchable on video, but in real life, you'd have died for attempting to look at that kata...Really..Fo' sho'..

I liked the "traditional" bows best..Well cool..

Wrist strengthening wouldn't be something Koryu would train in that manner though...It makes a small amount of sense to add it in something like Chinese arts, where wrist flexibility is more essential, but wouldn't add much to any sword kata designed for use in feudal Japan..

As for sticks, yes, I agree entirely....The rotation of a blunt force increases the speed that it strikes the target at, and is therefore essential in nearly all the schools I've seen (Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, and Western), although done in different ways naturally..That makes sense..But for sword I suspect that (At least for Japanese Koryu) the answer lies somewhere close to what I wrote originally..

Unless the "twirling" mentioned is a form of furikaburi, or chiburi possibly...I've seen some great displays of "twirling" from schools using it while sheathing the sword...Taisha Ryu has a great display...And Bicchu den Iai do something similar...It's not unknown, but that's not for swordplay..It's after the fact..

Regards..And ummm...Thanks (?) for the video...

 

What you said fifthchamber makes a lot of sense to me.

It is a figure eight "cut" that is the motion I've been calling twirling for lack of a better word.