Ninja vs Samurai Sword Arts

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

Just read what Chris said. It's probably the best post on the subject that I've ever read. I don't always agree with his opinions, but as far as knowing historical information regarding koryu arts and Japanese arts, I definitely consider him to be a trustworthy source.

 

[MattofSilat]

Glad you got something out of it.



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.



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.

i probably have little idea of what I'm talking about here, so take it with a grain of Salt. In that video shown, why exactly did he have to draw his sword back all that way for about 3/4 of a second, just to put it over his shoulder? Surely he didn't need a ton of power for that. It may have been a feint, but if he was drawing it back that far, could he not go through the unarmed block with a sword strike?

Also, and I know that this was probably purely for the Kata, but why exactly would you be shouting when assassinating somebody by slitting their throat? Does this not remove the purpose of killing them via slitting their throat in the first place..

 

[Chris Parker]

i probably have little idea of what I'm talking about here, so take it with a grain of Salt. In that video shown, why exactly did he have to draw his sword back all that way for about 3/4 of a second, just to put it over his shoulder? Surely he didn't need a ton of power for that. It may have been a feint, but if he was drawing it back that far, could he not go through the unarmed block with a sword strike?

Also, and I know that this was probably purely for the Kata, but why exactly would you be shouting when assassinating somebody by slitting their throat? Does this not remove the purpose of killing them via slitting their throat in the first place..

Hey Matt,

These are some very interesting questions… and I can see how you came to some of the conclusions you did. Let's see how we go with some answers.

To begin with, there are a few things to cover as a base. The first thing to say is that I am not a member of, nor training in, Araki Ryu. I do have friends and acquaintances who train/teach in a couple of different lines of the system, and I've discussed a range of aspects with them at length, but nothing I'm saying here is to be taken as anything other than conjecture from someone outside of the Ryu-ha itself. That conjecture is based on observation, conversation, asking questions myself, and being familiar with the "standard" training methodology (kata geiko) used in Araki Ryu and similar systems. And, a lot of the answers (such as can be provided here) are reliant on an understanding of kata geiko in the first place… so, let's look at that.

Kata geiko (form practice) is the standard method of training for many Koryu (old school… Japanese arts that have an origin pre-dating the Meiji Restoration of 1868, and have continued unbroken since then). In essence, it's the repeated practice of a series of pre-determined actions and movements… in many familiar arts today (such as Karate, TKD etc), that's done as a long string of solo movements… however that particular form of training has it's origins in Chinese training methods, not Japanese. Most Japanese systems have their kata geiko performed with a partner, with each person representing either the side that "wins" or the side that "loses" (note I didn't say anything about an "attacker" or "defender"&#8230. The major exceptions are where the "opponent" would be in an unsafe position, such as in Kyudo/jutsu (archery), shurikenjutsu (throwing spikes), or Iaijutsu (where a real sword is often used, at least historically). There are one or two other exceptions to this, depending on the system (I am familiar with one system that utilises a solo sojutsu [spearmanship] training kata, and one that features both solo and paired forms of their jujutsu… as well as a couple of systems that do their Iai paired), but this is the common. To see things like Jujutsu kata done solo is highly unusual, and begs further investigation (i.e., it's most likely not actually Japanese Jujutsu).

So that's what kata geiko is… but we still need to understand the why and how questions…

These two questions are intrinsically linked with each other… the "why" gives the "how", so to speak. So, let's look at "why". The "why" of kata geiko is simple, really… it's considered the most efficient way to transmit the lessons of the Ryu, with the least chance of outside contamination (from personal preference, misunderstanding, or anything else). Of course, this is not really that simply understood… so I'll say it again. It's considered the most efficient way to transmit the lessons of the Ryu. Not the best way to teach you to fight, not the best way to learn to spar, or anything else… the best way to transmit the lessons of the Ryu… which might be combative in context, form, application, or anything… or might not be at all. So, as you can see, the most important aspect of kata geiko is that you get the lessons… being able to "fight" is kinda secondary… which means that, when we get to "how", it's about designing a form (kata) that expresses the lessons (ryugi) in a clear fashion. Often, that means that certain actions are highly stylised… or there are parts added (or removed) for the sake of clarity, or congruence, with the rest of the Ryu and it's lessons.

With that, let's look at your questions.

Why did the practitioner pull his kogusoku (dagger) back so far? Well, there are a range of reasons that could be there… one is to ensure that the action is practiced in it's full motion… as, in a real event, the amount of adrenaline can severely "shorten" your actions, and training in an already shortened version can lead to an ineffective movement in real life. It's also ensuring that the weapon is lined up with the target properly. When it comes to him simply "put(ting) it over (the victims) shoulder", that's not quite what happens either… it's a full thrust designed to go all the way through the throat of the enemy. There is no "unarmed block" at all, as it's just not really going to work at that range/speed (remember, this is an embu [martial demonstration], not a keiko [practice session]… things are often done slightly differently there, whether on a technical level, or purely with regards to the speed or similar). The victim, realistically, reacts to being grabbed by counter-grabbing, and utilises the gap in the the grabbing force (as the thrust comes in) to evade with a very slight movement to the left (this is both a defence on the part of the victim, and a training device to ensure that the practitioner can do a full thrust in practice). From there, the action is to move around behind the victim, turning your blade, and cutting… if you've successfully stabbed through the throat, this is a method for opening up the wound, and retrieving your weapon… if not, it turns from a missed thrust into a slice across the carotid artery as you move around to a position where the victim can't defend or apply any weapon they might have, and applying a finishing thrust (to dome) to the neck.

So, within this small action, you have redundancies, counters, attacking forms, defences, controls, tactical aspects, control over the image you're presenting, and far, far more. You can see that kata geiko is far more than just "this is a technique"… it's a technique which is representative of much more important aspects.

Ah, the kiai… In many traditional systems, the kiai serves a range of purposes… it can be used as a "book end" to the technique… it is used to emphasise certain aspects… it can be used to indicate a complete commitment to the action (ki - energy, ai - harmony… ki-ai, therefore, is harmonising with your energy, or intention, and implies having every part of yourself dedicated to what you're doing [physical, spiritual, mental etc]). Here, I would posit that this is a way of emphasising the commitment to the action more than anything else… a definitive statement of your intent (symbolically) in your action.

 

[Tgace]

An interesting analouge to explore in the Samurai/Ninja discussion is the CIA's Special Activities Section and/or its Direct Action Groups. Individuals from Elite Special Forces Units (referred to as Tier One Units) are tapped to work for the CIA to conduct what would be considered "ninjalike" covert operations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

No.

 

[donald1]

There's a lot of points here that sound reasonable, there's a lot of points that show the sword itself does not have significant difference. Perhaps the way they swing the sword.

I always get some of them mixed up, we're the samurai like the police?

 

[Chris Parker]

The sword used itself can be fairly significant… or it can be rather unimportant… or it can be a particular form used in training to enable easier use of other forms in actual combative application. Thing is, the idea of there being one type of sword that was universally used by "samurai" or "ninja" was inaccurate… different Ryu-ha (systems) would have certain preferences, for their own reasons. When it comes to "the way they swing the sword", well, kinda but kinda not. The particular methodologies, yeah… which has a lot more to it than "the way they swing the sword"...

As far as "were the samurai like the police?", well, that also really depends. Remember that we're talking about around a thousand years of history, development, and changing social structure, and a large variety of cultural dictates. If you're talking Heian period, you'll get a different image to Kamakura Jidai, which is different to Sengoku Jidai, different again to Edo Jidai… and, within each of the different time periods, which are identified largely by differing social constructs, you then have a range of striated categorisation of what is considered a "samurai"… most definitively in the Edo Jidai, leading out of the Sengoku Jidai. You have differences between Goshi (rural samurai), who might operate in some forms similar to a local Sheriff in a small town… through to bureaucratic duties being taken on by mid-high level samurai in Edo or large towns… during the Edo period, more Samurai, due to a lack of warfare keeping them occupied, would take on such roles as policing (prior to that, it was dominantly non-samurai), however they would often be the senior/leadership members of a police force, with other (non-samurai) persons making up the rest of the force… other samurai would turn to be firefighters… some would open "public" dojo at this time as well…

The thing is, you really can't make any single claim as to what the samurai were, what their role was, their duties etc. There was just too much variation over time.

 

[Tgace]

I always get some of them mixed up, we're the samurai like the police?

Prior to Norman V Peel, policing was more of an activity/duty than it was a profession or a job. In many cultures military personnel were also tasked with policelike duties. Or local village men policed their areas in something more akin to a "posse" than a police force.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

Huh?

Prior to Norman V Peel, policing was more of an activity/duty than it was a profession or a job. In many cultures military personnel were also tasked with policelike duties. Or local village men policed their areas in something more akin to a "posse" than a police force.

I can find no mention of any "Norman V Peel", so I don't know what you're referring to there… I can find a Norman Vincent Peale (author of "The Power of Positive Thinking")… and, in the context of the question, there's Robert Peel, who was responsible for overhauling the English policing methodologies (establishing the modern English police in 1829, when he was Home Secretary)… but none of that has anything to do with the question of whether or not the samurai were the police force in Japan… nor does any comment of a "posse" have anything to do with it.

In short, the answer is "no"… samurai were samurai… what that entailed changed due to the time period, social structure at the time, and location in Japan, and sometimes did incorporate aspects of policing for some samurai, but it wasn't ever part of the "standard" role samurai played… and largely wasn't anything to do with them until the Edo period (1600-1868).

Really, though Tgace, it doesn't matter what "many cultures" might have done… that answer had nothing to do with the question asked.

 

[Tgace]

I always get some of them mixed up, we're the samurai like the police?

Although...on second thought...I suppose the answer could be yes depending on the period discussed. During the Edo period Samurai were pretty much used as the police.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period_police

They even had special equipment for the duty.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasumata

Previous to that some sources say that Samurai performed ancillary duties like palace guards, body guards and police in major cities but I don't believe that saying "Samurai were police" is quite accurate. Samurai were warriors/soldiers who may have done other tasks at various historical points.

Police history "East" and police history "West" are two separate tracks though.

Here in the US our system of law/policing still shows vestiges of our Colonial heritage heavily influenced by Brit developments and people like Peel (Sir Robert "Bobbies" Peel that is...don't know where Norman came from Lol).

I'm no Japanese police scholar, but their history probably went from villages being "policed" by village elders and his selectmen, with some more populous areas having Samurai doing police like duties. In the Edo period the Samurai were used in a more systematic manner. During the Meiji restoration Japan picked up a more European model...like they did in many other things.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, once more then…

Although...on second thought...I suppose the answer could be yes depending on the period discussed. During the Edo period Samurai were pretty much used as the police.

Edo period police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. The answer is "no". Samurai were not police.

However… some samurai did act as police in certain periods, and in some ways. That, though, is really not the same thing as saying that samurai were police… the same way that German Shepherds are dogs, but dogs aren't by definition German Shepherds.

The Edo period example is also not really saying that the samurai were police either… in many areas they may have (depending on their rank, affiliation, daimyo's relationship to the Tokugawa clan, location, and more) acted as either part of, or in charge of a form of police force… but they were not the entirety of the police force (not even the majority of it, really), nor were all samurai even involved in such areas of Japanese life and society. The majority of samurai in the Edo period were bureaucrats, or involved in the infrastructure supporting them. Police were just one part of that infrastructure.

As far as the Wiki reference, it's not that accurate in a few places, so I'd hardly rely on it.

They even had special equipment for the duty.

Sasumata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, the sasumata, along with the sodegarami and tsukubo, is part of what is collectively referred to as either the torimono sandogu, or simply mitsudogu (three tools). Thing is, it's not actually a "samurai" thing… very few bushi ryu-ha have any methods for them (I'm only aware of one extant system that has any, actually)… so it's not really any indication of there being "samurai police"… in fact, the mitsudogu were largely designed to enable a non-samurai to safely manage an armed warrior, or anyone else, with minimalist training or expertise.

Really, the mitsudogu were specialist "police" equipment, not specialist "samurai police" equipment… they were likely to be used by the non-samurai, rather than the samurai members themselves.

Previous to that some sources say that Samurai performed ancillary duties like palace guards, body guards and police in major cities but I don't believe that saying "Samurai were police" is quite accurate. Samurai were warriors/soldiers who may have done other tasks at various historical points.

So you start by saying "the answer could be yes", now, three sentences on, it becomes "I don't believe that saying "Samurai were police" is quite accurate"… really?

Of course, nothing you say here has any real relevance… or adds anything… or, well, shows much actual understanding of the topic, if I'm to be blunt.

Police history "East" and police history "West" are two separate tracks though.

Er… right… and?

Here in the US our system of law/policing still shows vestiges of our Colonial heritage heavily influenced by Brit developments and people like Peel (Sir Robert "Bobbies" Peel that is...don't know where Norman came from Lol).

Yeah, I was wondering where it came from as well… but what does the US policing form have to do with samurai as police/not as police?

I'm no Japanese police scholar, but their history probably went from villages being "policed" by village elders and his selectmen, with some more populous areas having Samurai doing police like duties. In the Edo period the Samurai were used in a more systematic manner. During the Meiji restoration Japan picked up a more European model...like they did in many other things.

No scholar? No kidding… how about you stop guessing, then? I've already answered how things happened, guesswork isn't adding anything valuable. But, for the record, no. On many, many counts.