Yes, that's one of the basic principles from the Kunst des Fechtens (The Art of Fighting): Use strength against weakness and weakness against strength. Here's a good German manual with a rather readable translation from ARMA: The Fechtbuch of Sigmund Ringeck: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Ringeck.htm Some manuals are rather cryptic, others less so. In medieval manuals, generally a principle is illustrated using a specific technique, rather than the other way around. Presumably the technique serves as a mnemonic for the principle, much as Liechtenauer's verses are a mnemonic for the whole system. Here are the basic varieties of the Twitch, called in German "Zucken": Zucken (the most typical version): pulling the sword back out of the bind, which generally creates a small circular motion at the sword's tip. Abnehmen: "Taking Off". Pulling the sword up out of the bind, clearing his blade, and bringing it back down again on the other side, since his momentum has carried his sword offline. It's a very fast, "up-down" motion. The Schnappen: "Snapping". You opponent has bound your sword HARD to the side, pinning it down. Bring your pommel forward and over his sword, which will bring them parallel and snap the blade to his head. If pinned on the left side, you snap with the short (back) edge. These are all accompanied by footwork to take you offline. Related is the Durchwechseln "Changing Through". Also called in modern English "Disengaging". The opponent engages your tip (because he's dumb ), and you let the point slip out and thrust. It can be done either from a bind or before the bind even happens. The stances there look kind of off to me. They should be facing more squarely to the opponent, and sometimes the hands are far too low in some binds. But you get the general idea. Does that help? Best regards, -Mark
Yes with your explanations and the pictures, much easier to understand all of this. Here's another style wich includes a lot of binds, Kashima shin ryu. I could spot some techniques from GLS, or at least some principles that looked quite the same. One of the oldest styles known today (about the same time as katori shinto ryu). The sensei here is not really in kashima shin ryu (internal matter) and some exponents say it is not really the same applications, timing etc. But I figure it still draws a general idea. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elUrjvbxeYY"]Inaba Minoru Kashima Shinryu Kenjutsu - YouTube[/ame]
A lot twitching there. I noticed a textbook Durchwechseln (at 2:10), though we tend to do the thrust with the hands held high after changing through into the guard Ochs. There's also a quick shot of the "Hende Trucken" in the intro. Here are some decent longsword clips: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg"]Fechten mit dem langen Schwert - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=related"]Some long sword fencing pieces after Danzig & Ringeck - YouTube[/ame] Here's my personal favourite: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwdE3f5fFQ&feature=related"]Longsword some techniques I (old interpretation) - YouTube[/ame] Note that one of the central tactical considerations is to always threaten with the point. Here's Part II of the last one: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQP6lthpLA"]Longsword some techniques II (old interpretation) - YouTube[/ame] Note the takedowns are similar to the kenjutsu demo. Best regards, -Mark
What really "lept out" at me was the attacking along the line of the sword. That is classic to how we train. Great links guys. Thanks koyo
Whats really funny is that twitching is one of my favourite techniques and it's because Koyo trained me in how to do it well. The technique is identical between the two styles. The Bear.
Indeed. One must close the incoming line of attack or end up getting killed rather than countering. Best regards, -Mark
Just pursuing my own thoughts again here; the technique demonstrated at around 16 seconds into this video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA&feature=related"]Some long sword fencing pieces after Danzig & Ringeck - YouTube[/ame] -is that as safe/easy to do with a katana as it is with a longsword? I imagine having a crossguard in this situation is a substantial advantage, that allows your technique to be sligthly more sloppy than if it was to be done with a blade with "only" a tsuba, but am I wrong in that assumption? (When I apply that move in free-sparring in full contact, the reason why it goes wrong, the times it goes wrong is because: A -I fail to "trap" the opponents blade on my crossguard, and his blade slides onto my underarm or B -he focuses on my blade rather than me, and does a kron(central) block. In that case, though, I usually keep the initiative and end up winning, but not because I did somthing very right, rather because my opponent succseeded in a panic block)
That technique demands that it be executed precisely along the line of his blade. Done correctly the tsuba shall engage his blade.However the triangular body alignment sharper that that shown tends to give us that little bit more protection. (but a cross guard would be better) regards koyo
I believe it could if done right and quickly enough. Look at the technique about 00:30 : [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyS5roV6Q3Q"]YouTube[/ame] That's another school, Kaïshin-ryu kenjutsu, not issued from the kashima influence but much more from the kage/shinkage one. The frontal bent position is characteristic of some schools that hail from this ancestry.
I like this thread. I have gotten around and fast read the comparison thread and it is very interesting. I have seen some videos and have seen the similarities, but much better with text to explain.
That was neat! Just remember: I have never suggested that was impossible to do with katana, I'm only suggesting that it's a bit more difficult to do it with a katana than with a longsword. The point Langenschwert made a few posts ago, that since the tsuba is wider than a crossguard (not than the Rapier "guard", though), there are perhaps techniques that are "safer" done with a tsuba than with a crossguard as well? Any katanawielders kendo, shinto or others that have candidates for such techniques?
In aiki ken we depend far more on body alignment to avoid or negate a cut. In my experince there are not so many blocks as such more glancing aside. It is only because of our empty hand techniques that we tend to use the bind. This is used to bring the sword and empty hand principles together. Swordfights are over in seconds and there is a chance both shall be injured unless one is of a higher standard (or particularly lucky on that day). I think the japanese mind set of attacking at all times with little thought of defence would be a "double edged blade" in that it could intimidate a lesser swordsman but leave the japanese swordsman open to a confident and decisive opponent. In kendo the tsuba rarely if ever is involved in actual blocking.I noticed in the link that the Kashin ryu swordsmen had no tsuba on their bokken. regards koyo
Many schools don't use tsuba on their bokken. I supose that many considered that the right hand was playing the same role anyway, an they probably did not wanted their students to rely too much on it... or to develop som very tough fingers .
Just to recapitulate my little agenda in this thread: I have the impression that katana is a "risky" weapon, and It seems to me that if I understand Koyo right, he and I think in the same lines in this. If we then asume that hand-protection and reach have some influence of the outcome of a fight, I could get away with my assumption that a duel between katana and rapier/longsword, the statistical outcome should be in favour of the european blades. This beeing said, I do not mean that this prooves HEMA superiority over TMA from japan, or that a katana is inferior to rapier/longsword. Actually this doesn't mean anything. What it might show, is what koyo writes much better than I'm capable of in his previous post, that it perhaps reflects different cultureal emphasis between Europe and Japan on weapons that had more to do with cultural standing and honour than than on battlefield warfare. If I'm right in my speculations, then the japaneese needed bigger ****s than their european cousins, and that they probably never compared, due to that they probably were indifferent towards the others' systems :topic:
The guard of the rapier/longsword is an answer for a problem of protection. I am under the impression that the europeans came with a technological answer, while the japanese came with a kinesiologic answer. Instead of sacrificing mobility around the guard, they prefered to concentrate on finding ways to protect themselves by moving efficiently. Now both ways have their advantage and problems, and both systems found how to use them based on their priorities. The same problem was presented in a conference with a karate shihan I assisted to, he threw an apple at someone and asked: "You have one apple, but you have to give one half to another. How are you gonna do this." Naturally the person said: "Well I'll use a knife." He answered: "That's the technological answer of your generation. If you knew how to use your body you wouldn't need a knife." And so he showed him how to break the apple by a simple principle of leverage. Now don't take me wrong, I'm sure that HEMA have very good movements, it's just that the japanese one is adapted to the katana. After all, as I mentionned, they did had crossguards (even handguards) on many other weapons, but never ever on a katana. Now that's something. Anyway I've said it before, and I'll say it again, comparing styles like this is an exercice in futility. There is no ultimate sword and nobody is on the same level. On another note, what would you make of a katzbalger? Most don't have a guard bigger than a tsuba, but seemed to have been used by men who knew what they were up to.
I think this is a gross oversimplification. I don't think that there's much of a difference between a crossguard and a tsuba. I onced sparred an experienced (10 years' experience) Kendoka using unmodified Shinai, and I didn't get hit in the hands any more than I usually do, and all I had was the little plastic tsuba. With regards to mobility around the guard, I don't think either has a significant impact. However, what about clothing? Crossguards and complex hilts do get caught on clothing from time to time, which is one of the reasons for the development of the smallsword. Could it be that the tsuba is designed for compactness due to the peculiarities of Japanese feudal fashion? Believe it or not, fashion and etiquette has had a large impact on the development of some MA systems. Also, with regards to movement, the earliest manuscript in the Liechtenauer tradition (H.S. 3227a) says to attack by the most direct route, as if there was a string tied to the tip of your sword to your opponent's nearest opening. There is no extraneous movement at all. Indeed. Now what would be interesting is what Koryu arts say about protecting one's hands, or if they mention it at all. The German texts don't really mention it except to say the hands are a really sweet target. The images in the Goliath manuscript show people gripping the swords further down the grip, leaving about a finger-width between the hand and crossguard. I've tried this out, and find to work quite well, especially in winding manoeuvres, where the hands can get nicked. I don't know enough except to say that they're pretty sweet. I mean, the Teutonic Knights wouldn't use something if it didn't work. Best regards, -Mark
It does show that the tsuba does it's job well. As for clothing, I sometimes wear a more traditional kimono, and I don't see how a crossguard would be in the way. I suppose it could get stuck in one of the sleeves (wich were often tied anyway) but you would have to be very distracted, and it could only happen during unsheating, wich is not important to all schools. Some people also seemed to wear very tight sleeves, as Hasekura here (while in Rome in 1615): http://www.artsales.com/ARTistory/images/Hasekura.jpg Now I did not meant that GLS is not as direct, but that the body movement of kenjutsu is thought to protect oneself by positioning in a precise way around the opponent. In many schools the movement is the first defense, the sword is the second. Anyway I am venturing into unfamiliar lands now. The forearm is a good target in many style, and I think that shinkage ryu (or a school that is connected to it at least) does hit the hands a lot by interception. A crossguard would not be of any help there if the timing was right (wich is the goal). They also keep a space between the tsuba and their hands, don't know the reason though. Edit: May have been Yagyu shinkage ryu: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCG-G-6VqZQ"]YouTube[/ame] On another interesting note, the tsuba did change with the european contacts, but only in symbols as the christian cross was used: http://www.bugei.com/images_products/532_small.jpg
I am inclined to think that even if a cross guard would have improved the samurai sword, it would have been rejected because of the cult of the sword The katana was deamed to be the perfect weapon. Even when guns came into the equasion they were neglected in favour of the sword until it became obvious that they were the future of warfare and led to the end of the samurai class itself. As for duels, again the japanese mind set is such that any deceit that brought victory was acceptable. The instant a challenge was given let's say by posting a challenge in the town square, from that moment the "combat" had begun, Example Musashi turning up late to unsettle his opponent or turning up early to ambush the opponent. Again I would say the tactics attitude and experience of the individual combatants would have more of an effect on the outcome than differences in the make up of the sword. regards koyo
Actualy the cult of the sword that you imply only took on during the Edo period when it became the privilege of the warrior class. Before this every man who could pick a sword could own one, and so it was only regarded with respect because it was one of the imperial attributes (wich was not even a katana), but it was still an instrument of war, who could be modified if needed be. Actually the japanese were always quite fast to get on with new technologies. The gun was introduced very fast. Yes some armies were a bit shy on it's use, but after Nagashino (the first massive use of guns in history) it became quite clear that it was a necessity. Heck, Sekigahara battle had 1/3 of all the guns in the world, and a single army had more guns than any entire european country. And shorlty after their introduction they even started optimizing the guns, even creating entire ryu on this weapon: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b6fwFG1ITM"]Demonstration of Seki-ryu Hojutsu (firearms) - YouTube[/ame]
Methods differ greatly from ryu to ryu, but in my experience the big issue is usually controlling the center line. If you can do that, the curve of the blade can usually take care of the rest regarding your hands. Also leaving a space between the tsuba/guard and right hand is also pretty much the norm in Japanese arts (anyone who has done any jojutsu with beginners can quickly tell you why), but again, everything varies from ryu to ryu. For what its worth, Rennis Buchner
