Ninja vs Samurai Sword Arts

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
575
Since the Ninja evolved from the Samurai I though that the Ninja sword arts were much the same as the Samurai sword arts. However, the swords are a bit different. The Samurai sword has a round guard and a curved blade and the Ninja sword has a square guard and a straight blade, so I would think there must be some difference in how the swords are used.
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hmm... I'm going to try to be gentle here, but honestly, absolutely nothing you've said here is correct. I'll take it bit by bit, and see if we can correct some misunderstandings.

Since the Ninja evolved from the Samurai

Hmm, no. The first thing to realise is that what you think is a "ninja" is largely a fiction... historically, a "ninja"/"shinobi no mono"/"any similar or related term" was someone who performed, or assisted in performing, particular tasks, associated with espionage, information gathering, and infiltration. Many times, these persons were samurai, simply filling a particular role in their duties, which might include "ninjutsu" skills such as tracking, scouting, reconnaissance, and so on. While there were some areas that were particularly reknowned for such skills (Iga and Koga), the warriors that came from there were commonly referred to as "Iga no mono" (person from Iga), or "Iga no Bushi" (warrior from Iga), rather than anything specific about them being "ninja".

The samurai were the warrior class of Japan from the 12th Century until the mid-late 19th (roughly), but exactly what a "samurai" was depended greatly on the time period you're looking at... the samurai of the Kamakura period weren't the same as the samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, or of the Edo Jidai. Throughout, however, they were the ones in charge of military matters, in one way or another, and, as they were at the upper end of the feudal caste system of Japan, there was nothing that really "evolved" from them... it'd be a step down to go anywhere from samurai status, really.

I though that the Ninja sword arts were much the same as the Samurai sword arts.

Well, having first established that there's no real difference between ninja and samurai (historically), I think it's pretty clear that, well, no. And, realistically, there is no such thing as "ninja sword arts"... there are particular sword systems that have a unique, or individual approach... but the distinction is the same as between any two "samurai" sword arts.

However, the swords are a bit different.

No, they're not. Individual schools might have a preference for particular sword designs, furniture, configurations, and so on, to the point of having a speciality sword in some cases, but in the end, that's more a particular schools preference, and that's it.

The Samurai sword has a round guard and a curved blade

That's a very generalized statement, and not a really correct one. For one thing, there are any number of tsuba (sword guard) designs, some are round, some are square, some have particular identifying characteristics, some are oddly shaped, some have holes, some are more solid, and so on. And some swords didn't have tsuba at all.

and the Ninja sword has a square guard and a straight blade,

No, that's a product of essentially Hollywood myth. That sword never actually existed.

so I would think there must be some difference in how the swords are used.

There are differences between individual sword arts, but that's all. If you're not talking about specific schools, then you really can't talk about differences in usage at all. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu has methodologies that are different to Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, which are different to Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, which is different to Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which is different to Maniwa-Nen Ryu, which is different to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, which is different to Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu, which is different to Mugai Ryu, which is different to Araki Ryu, which is different to... well, all the others. And none of these are "ninja sword" schools, although some contain "ninjutsu" teachings as part of their methods. Within the modern Ninjutsu schools, the Togakure Ryu is said to be a "ninja" system, and features a sword methodology, but it's differences aren't any more different to the other sword system taught, Kukishinden Ryu, or Kage Ryu, or anything else. It just has it's own unique approach, same as any other system around.
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
9,102
Location
Pueblo West, CO
Since the Ninja evolved from the Samurai I though that the Ninja sword arts were much the same as the Samurai sword arts. However, the swords are a bit different. The Samurai sword has a round guard and a curved blade and the Ninja sword has a square guard and a straight blade, so I would think there must be some difference in how the swords are used.

In the words of the Great and Wise GrandMaster Mr Miyagi...

You too much TV!
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Yes looking at OP's initial post pretty much I can imagine that was gleaned from Hollywood or reading a Stephen Hayes book. Understand that both do not represent what was. The ninja were not oppressed peasants, they did not utilize a straight sword with a square guard. Heck they were not even called "ninja" in that time.

If you have questions I am sure Chris or I would be happy to answer them. Provided...... they are not ridiculous!
 

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
OP
P

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
575
If Im wrong about the origin of the Ninja than I stand corrected. I have seen lots of Ninja in Hollywood and I do have some of Stephen Hayes' books but I've studied Ninja from other sources too, magazines, other books about Ninja as well as documentary videos about the martial arts that cover the Ninja as well as other stuff about martial arts. From what I had learned from my research is that the Ninja evolved from the Samurai. That there were Samurai who disagreed with the government and who fled and took refuge in the mountains and that is how the Ninja came to be. So the Ninja can even be seen as a Japanese version of Robin Hood. If Im wrong on this I stand corrected.

Now, I do realize I was wrong about the Ninja sword and on that I do stand corrected. From the posts here as well as the links and this video on youtube, I see that the straight bladed square guard sword is entirely a product of Hollywood, much like the Rambo knife. Here is the video I was talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
Bluntly, there's a lot of crap out there about ninjutsu. Some of it is innocent, sort of forgivable misunderstandings and repeated misunderstandings or misstatements. Some of it is people grabbing onto "ninjutsu" as a label, because it's so vague. Some of it is outright scam and devious deception. (Some, I have to say, seem to be outright delusional craziness.) I'll let some of the others with more direct experience and knowledge go into it in depth... but you can't believe everything you read. And you can't believe a lot of what you find on the web or on tv. Very loosely and broadly, if it's got some sort of documented connection and history from the Bujinkan (Hatsumi), the Jinenkan, or the Genbukan... it's got a better chance of being credible, reasonably accurate, or in the category of fairly innocent mistakes. At the other end... well, Ashida Kim is pretty much as far from accurate about ninjutsu as you can get without going super crazy. Which may say something about where super crazy ninja stuff will take you...
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
If Im wrong about the origin of the Ninja than I stand corrected.

You're wrong.

I have seen lots of Ninja in Hollywood and I do have some of Stephen Hayes' books but I've studied Ninja from other sources too, magazines, other books about Ninja as well as documentary videos about the martial arts that cover the Ninja as well as other stuff about martial arts.

Hayes made a lot of mistakes in his early work (not always corrected later, or when it was, it was often glossed over, for the record), magazines, hollywood, etc are no credible sources at all, "other books" could be anything, and from the sounds of things, aren't anything that I'd put any stake in, and I have yet to see any documentary (other than things like "34 Generations", or the Genbukan one whose name escapes me presently) that have anything close to actual information in them... the number that use people like Antony Cummins, James Loriega etc are just ridiculous... so you know, they have no credibility whatsoever either.

There are good sources out there, but you would have to forget everything you think you know so far and begin again.

From what I had learned from my research is that the Ninja evolved from the Samurai.

No.

That there were Samurai who disagreed with the government and who fled and took refuge in the mountains and that is how the Ninja came to be.

Completely and utterly no.

So the Ninja can even be seen as a Japanese version of Robin Hood.

Not at all.

If Im wrong on this I stand corrected.

Okay. So you know, you're wrong. That's not said with malice, but you don't seem to have got it when I said it earlier.

Now, I do realize I was wrong about the Ninja sword and on that I do stand corrected.

Okay.

From the posts here as well as the links and this video on youtube, I see that the straight bladed square guard sword is entirely a product of Hollywood, much like the Rambo knife. Here is the video I was talking about.

Wow. Look, just about the only thing that guy gets right is the idea that straight "ninja swords" didn't exist. The rest shows he doesn't actually know anything else... his reasoning on the shape of the tsuba is definitively wrong (there were square tsuba, you wouldn't wear the sword on your back other than for transporting over a long distance when it wouldn't be used, so ignore everything he said there), his description of usage is inaccurate, his description of other blades (such as tanto) is wrong, and more. Not someone to listen to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brian R. VanCise

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
27,758
Reaction score
1,520
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Photonguy there is so much good information out there I would suggest reading books by Hatsumi Sensei, Tanemura Sensei or Manaka Sensei to name a few.
 
OP
P

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
575
I will look up Hatsumi. I hear he is a very credible source. Anyway, I do know the Ninja were not from the peasant class as some people think. If the Ninja didn't evolve from the Samurai their formation must've had something to do with the Samurai. The Ninja were very secretive and that's probably why there is much misconception about them in this day.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
In some ways, I think "ninjutsu" might be better or more fairly equated with military intelligence and special operations, and the ninja simply being agents or operators. I think that fictional (and some not quite fictional) presentations have greatly and artificially glamorized them into something more than they ever were.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Oh dear lord...

I will look up Hatsumi. I hear he is a very credible source.

You hear he's a "very credible source"?!?! Really?!?! Anything that has any claim at authenticity in Ninjutsu (other than some small sections of some Koryu systems) comes from Hatsumi, or realistically, his teacher, Takamatsu. All of the major organizations are headed by Hatsumi or his students... there really isn't anything else to it. He's not just "a very credible source", in one way, he is the source (more for the Bujinkan and Jinenkan, less for the Genbukan). If there isn't a link in some way to Hatsumi or Takamatsu, ignore it. And, just to confuse you, even if there is, don't necessarily accept it outright....

Anyway, I do know the Ninja were not from the peasant class as some people think. If the Ninja didn't evolve from the Samurai their formation must've had something to do with the Samurai. The Ninja were very secretive and that's probably why there is much misconception about them in this day.

That's the thing, you think you know this, but it's completely incorrect. There were no "ninja" in the sense you're using the idea there... there was no distinction between "ninja" and samurai... many who were "ninja" (those who were performing espionage, scouting, surveillance, reconnaissance etc) were samurai. Ninja didn't "evolve" from samurai, they were samurai. No running away from any government (the samurai were the government, they were the ruling class and were in charge), there was no "formation", as it just didn't happen that way.

You've been told that already. To emphasise, here it is again:

Hmm... I'm going to try to be gentle here, but honestly, absolutely nothing you've said here is correct. I'll take it bit by bit, and see if we can correct some misunderstandings.

................

Hmm, no. The first thing to realise is that what you think is a "ninja" is largely a fiction... historically, a "ninja"/"shinobi no mono"/"any similar or related term" was someone who performed, or assisted in performing, particular tasks, associated with espionage, information gathering, and infiltration. Many times, these persons were samurai, simply filling a particular role in their duties, which might include "ninjutsu" skills such as tracking, scouting, reconnaissance, and so on. While there were some areas that were particularly reknowned for such skills (Iga and Koga), the warriors that came from there were commonly referred to as "Iga no mono" (person from Iga), or "Iga no Bushi" (warrior from Iga), rather than anything specific about them being "ninja".

The samurai were the warrior class of Japan from the 12th Century until the mid-late 19th (roughly), but exactly what a "samurai" was depended greatly on the time period you're looking at... the samurai of the Kamakura period weren't the same as the samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, or of the Edo Jidai. Throughout, however, they were the ones in charge of military matters, in one way or another, and, as they were at the upper end of the feudal caste system of Japan, there was nothing that really "evolved" from them... it'd be a step down to go anywhere from samurai status, really.

................

Well, having first established that there's no real difference between ninja and samurai (historically), I think it's pretty clear that, well, no. And, realistically, there is no such thing as "ninja sword arts"... there are particular sword systems that have a unique, or individual approach... but the distinction is the same as between any two "samurai" sword arts.

There are good sources out there, but you would have to forget everything you think you know so far and begin again.

In the words of the Great and Wise GrandMaster Mr Miyagi...

You too much TV!
 
OP
P

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
575
Hatsumi was Stephen Heyes teacher and while Hatsumi might be very credible lots of the stuff that Stephen Heyes says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Now, as for the swords that the Ninja used, how about swords with straight blades and long handles. Some sources say the Ninja used those.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
Hatsumi was Stephen Heyes teacher and while Hatsumi might be very credible lots of the stuff that Stephen Heyes says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Hayes wrote many of his books early on in his training when he really hadn't spent that much time in Japan. As a result, much of the information in those books isn't all that reliable. In fact, the one "Hatsumi" book which you should probably avoid is Ninjutsu: History and Tradition - that book was actually written by Hayes under Hatsumi's name. I'm informed that Hatsumi is very unhappy with how that book came out.

In addition, Hayes was more concerned with promoting a certain romantic narrative for salesmanship purposes than with careful historical research. I'm not going to pick on him too much for that. A huge percentage of the martial arts "history" that is passed on in most arts consists of romantic myths, half-truths, or complete nonsense. High-ranking practitioners are just as guilty of this as beginners.
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hatsumi was Stephen Heyes teacher and while Hatsumi might be very credible lots of the stuff that Stephen Heyes says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Who are you telling that to? Do you know why Hayes' material should be taken with a grain of salt? Do you know which is good and which isn't? My point is that you're still not hearing what you're being told. Yes, Hatsumi is credible. Yes, Hayes was taught by Hatsumi. Yes, Hayes wrote a fair bit (particularly early on) which was not as well researched or accurate as it could have been. We already know that (hell, we told you that). So, were you asking for confirmation, or were you saying what you now "know" as something for us to listen to?

Now, as for the swords that the Ninja used, how about swords with straight blades and long handles. Some sources say the Ninja used those.

Find me one, just one credible source that states that anyone, "ninja" or otherwise, used a sword with a straight single edged blade and a long handle. Just one. Who are these sources you're talking about?
 

CNida

Green Belt
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
149
Reaction score
10
Location
Northwest Arkansas area
Hmm... I'm going to try to be gentle here, but honestly, absolutely nothing you've said here is correct. I'll take it bit by bit, and see if we can correct some misunderstandings.



Hmm, no. The first thing to realise is that what you think is a "ninja" is largely a fiction... historically, a "ninja"/"shinobi no mono"/"any similar or related term" was someone who performed, or assisted in performing, particular tasks, associated with espionage, information gathering, and infiltration. Many times, these persons were samurai, simply filling a particular role in their duties, which might include "ninjutsu" skills such as tracking, scouting, reconnaissance, and so on. While there were some areas that were particularly reknowned for such skills (Iga and Koga), the warriors that came from there were commonly referred to as "Iga no mono" (person from Iga), or "Iga no Bushi" (warrior from Iga), rather than anything specific about them being "ninja".

The samurai were the warrior class of Japan from the 12th Century until the mid-late 19th (roughly), but exactly what a "samurai" was depended greatly on the time period you're looking at... the samurai of the Kamakura period weren't the same as the samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, or of the Edo Jidai. Throughout, however, they were the ones in charge of military matters, in one way or another, and, as they were at the upper end of the feudal caste system of Japan, there was nothing that really "evolved" from them... it'd be a step down to go anywhere from samurai status, really.



Well, having first established that there's no real difference between ninja and samurai (historically), I think it's pretty clear that, well, no. And, realistically, there is no such thing as "ninja sword arts"... there are particular sword systems that have a unique, or individual approach... but the distinction is the same as between any two "samurai" sword arts.



No, they're not. Individual schools might have a preference for particular sword designs, furniture, configurations, and so on, to the point of having a speciality sword in some cases, but in the end, that's more a particular schools preference, and that's it.



That's a very generalized statement, and not a really correct one. For one thing, there are any number of tsuba (sword guard) designs, some are round, some are square, some have particular identifying characteristics, some are oddly shaped, some have holes, some are more solid, and so on. And some swords didn't have tsuba at all.



No, that's a product of essentially Hollywood myth. That sword never actually existed.



There are differences between individual sword arts, but that's all. If you're not talking about specific schools, then you really can't talk about differences in usage at all. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu has methodologies that are different to Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, which are different to Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, which is different to Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which is different to Maniwa-Nen Ryu, which is different to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, which is different to Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu, which is different to Mugai Ryu, which is different to Araki Ryu, which is different to... well, all the others. And none of these are "ninja sword" schools, although some contain "ninjutsu" teachings as part of their methods. Within the modern Ninjutsu schools, the Togakure Ryu is said to be a "ninja" system, and features a sword methodology, but it's differences aren't any more different to the other sword system taught, Kukishinden Ryu, or Kage Ryu, or anything else. It just has it's own unique approach, same as any other system around.

This is why I love martial talk. I always learn something.

I am of that group who thought "ninja" were the guys who did what the samurai wouldn't do, namely because the tasks "ninja" performed were less than honorable.

I truly had no idea, apparently. Glad I never pretended I -did- know.


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
This is why I love martial talk. I always learn something.

Glad you got something out of it.

I am of that group who thought "ninja" were the guys who did what the samurai wouldn't do, namely because the tasks "ninja" performed were less than honorable.

Ha, yeah, it's a common belief, but it's just not supported by reality or historical records at all... on either idea. The thing to remember with the whole "honourable actions" thing is that that idea is really applied well and truly after the fact... common samurai tactics included quite a lot of what would be called "less than honourable"... such as using decoys, striking an opponent when they had their back turned, trick weapons, burning down a house/castle with people inside rather than meet them face to face, and so on.

Say, here's an example of a technique from a very "samurai" system, Araki Ryu:


I've posted other versions of that kata before, but this is a bit more "vicious", as well as containing the description of the principles of the kata as given by Ellis Amdur. Ignore the description on the you-tube page itself, though... the guy posting it has missed much of the point.

I truly had no idea, apparently. Glad I never pretended I -did- know.

Not knowing isn't a problem, of course... saying things to the best of your knowledge isn't an issue either... provided you're open to being corrected (which you are), and can accept that you might not have gotten it right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
P

PhotonGuy

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,224
Reaction score
575
About taking what Hayes says with a grain of salt, some of the people on this board have been saying that and a link posted on this thread by somebody else says that what Hayes claims should be taken skeptically. This is the link http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html

As for Ninja using shorter swords with longer handles, the sources that I've seen that mention that are various internet sources. The reasoning is that a shorter sword is easier to draw and use in close quarters but by placing it in a long scabbard and putting a long handle on it, people will assume its a long sword if it isn't drawn and long swords were associated with high status. Here is one of the sources about that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
About taking what Hayes says with a grain of salt, some of the people on this board have been saying that and a link posted on this thread by somebody else says that what Hayes claims should be taken skeptically. This is the link http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html

As for Ninja using shorter swords with longer handles, the sources that I've seen that mention that are various internet sources. The reasoning is that a shorter sword is easier to draw and use in close quarters but by placing it in a long scabbard and putting a long handle on it, people will assume its a long sword if it isn't drawn and long swords were associated with high status. Here is one of the sources about that.

It's a good idea to know the trustworthiness of your "various internet sources." The article in your first link was written by Don Roley - a very knowledgeable person on the subject. A lot of the other folks out there ... not so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Discussions

Top