Were really koryu battlefield arts?Any proofs?

[Dojomaniac]

Hello,

So, were koryu battlefield arts? Mr Amdur in his writings confirm that, but others claim that they were not used in battlefield combat. What is your opinion? Did they start as battlfield arts, and later on, changed to a more "budo" behaviour?Losing the bujutsu essence?

[Fred27]

I would say no, but that depends on what interpretation you have of koryu.

The one most common is that Koryu is generally used to describe any combat art created before the fall of the Samurai in 1870's.

The last gasp of the old battlefield action was the Shimabara Rebellion in 1637-1638. Then there were peace (more or less) until 1868 with the onset of the Boshin war.

And there were of course lots of ryuha founded in between 1638 and 1868. So if going by a strict "battlefield" interpretation of Koryu then the arts founded well after, and before, any sort of battlefield action would not be koryu. In fact prolly alot of ryu from the classical period would be classed as non-koryu using that comparison, including Shinto Muso ryu jodo (late 1500's, early 1600's) which was never a battlefield art.

[Dojomaniac]

Thank you for your reply.I wasn't very clear. Actually I meant not all coryu, but the ones that have the title of kogusoku(battlefield grappling). Maybe these arts do have battlefield origins. Any thoughts?

[Josh Reyer]

What exactly is your definition of "battlefield art"?

[Dojomaniac]

What exactly is your definition of "battlefield art"?

Hi Josh,

I mean that these arts have an origin from battlefields. Certain coryu have a basis in duelling, the give and take of the sword, like there is a "one to one" confrontation, not to "look" around like you are surrounded by enemies. Not to mention the fact that, as long as the sword concerns, swordfighting is said to be used mainly in duels, not in battles.

Mostly spear is considered more battlefield oriented, along with naginata.

[Fred27]

Hi Josh,
I mean that these arts have an origin from battlefields. Certain coryu have a basis in duelling, the give and take of the sword, like there is a "one to one" confrontation, not to "look" around like you are surrounded by enemies. Not to mention the fact that, as long as the sword concerns, swordfighting is said to be used mainly in duels, not in battles.

Mostly spear is considered more battlefield oriented, along with naginata.

Its true that the sword was not the first-hand weapon if the warrior had a spear & naginata ready and on hand, (which the samurai most like would have had at the beginning of a pitched battle). The sword is though considered to be a very important weapon in many Koryu with "battlefield" intent. The Katori Shinto Ryu tradition, argubly the most revered of the classical ryu, puts the sword in the center of their teachings as they believe its the most flexible of all weapons.

So I think to associate sword-fighting exclusively with duelling is a gross generalisation. I think this is a result of the much published fiction from, and about, the peaceful Edo-period (1615-1868) during which they did not carry a spear & naginata in the execution of their regular civil-duties, unlike the two-swords.

[cxt]

Dojo

Wouldn't that kinda depend on the school? Some koryu are easily old enough to fit various time frames.

Many of them contained grappling/atemi.......some still do and in others its fallen out of practice......so are you asking of somehad it "then" or if they "still" have it?

Plus......wouldn't it also depend on how you defined "battlefield?" How many people fighting at one time is needed for it to be a "battlefield?" 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?
Seriously not trying to be a pain......just not sure how to answer the question without a bit more concrete framework/s.

Besides, what real difference does it make to your training?

Again, just asking. :)

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

I also think it depends upon which time in an arts history you are refering to. For one example, the Takagi Ryu (and it's branches) is said to have been originally founded by Takagi Oriuemon Shigenobu after studying a number of weapon based arts, specifically Kyochi Ryu Sojutsu, and Ito Ryu Kenko Ryu which taught Sojutsu, Naginatajutsu, Bojutsu, Hanbojutsu, Kodachijutsu, and Kenjutsu. It came into contact with the Takenouchi Ryu in it's second generation, starting it's focus on grappling/unarmed combat that would totally replace it's weapons-based syllabus in surther generations, particularly after coming into contact with Kukishin Ryu.

The Takagi Ryu later gained a reputation as a 'bodyguard" school, with Jujutsu techniques that are said to be designed for use indoors. So this school which was founded and based on "battlefield" weapon systems later became a school of primarily suhada jujutsu, even going so far as to lose it's own original weapon skills, and taking on those of another school (Kukishin Ryu). Would you classify this as a "battlefield" art, as that is how it was founded, or not, as it evolved over the generations?

Personally, I feel this is an under-acknowledged aspect of the classical systems. I don't feel that arts such as Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu originally had such a strong emphasis on sword, but more likely focused on weapons like spear, or naginata. Later, when the longer weapons were les likely to be encountered (as in the Edo period, when you would find warriors wearing two swords, but rarely carrying a spear down the street).

Oh, and the term "kogusoku" doesn't quite mean "battlefield grappling". That would probably be katcchu yawara, or yoroi kumiuchi. Kogusoku is made up of two terms; "ko", meaning "small", and "gusoku", which literally refers to a "complete set", and is used colloquially to refer to a set of armour (yoroi/katcchu). So the term "kogusoku" refers to being lightly armed, or wearing minimal armour. In the Takenouchi Ryu, for instance, I believe the term is used for a jujutsu syllabus which includes the use of weapons such as tanto and daggers.

[Aaron T]

"Bujutsu" essence, is a combative mindset. A combative mindset is the product of many factors.

As a guy that does Koryu and gendai, I will tell you that in my experience it isn't what you do...it is how you do it that makes a "bujutsu" essence. (The only difference between an sport armlock and a combat one is I stop when you tap in sport.) The difference between a good linebacker and a great one is the "bujutsu" essence

In regards to Koryu, they are no more free of their context than anything else. Some are, or have become products of a past dueling era. Some retain the applicication of large scale conflict from a period of strife.

Almost no koryu, that I know of, do what soliders do best which is work as a unit. Swinging a naginata or jabbing a spear by yourself, without another man stuck to your shoulder, with another cat on the other side of him etc. is just swinging a naginata and jabbing a spear, it is not a replication of battlefield tactics.

In Araki many of the postures and movements are meant to take in to consideration armour, uneven ground, carrying your kit for long distances, running in your kit, etc. I have never seen nor been part of two units outfitted go charging another koryu group. More important nobody practices that way either. So battlefield tactics, no. (Making a distinction between tactic and task.)

A bit of a thread split maybe. Koryu is no more or less "serious," than gendai. They are both products of their context. The "fight" is in the man not the practice.

Aaron Fields

[K. Fredheim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxuQ5ahRJ4#t=2m50s

The only group tactics clip I can remember seeing.

[Chris Parker]

[QUOTE=Aaron T;475288Almost no koryu, that I know of, do what soliders do best which is work as a unit. Swinging a naginata or jabbing a spear by yourself, without another man stuck to your shoulder, with another cat on the other side of him etc. is just swinging a naginata and jabbing a spear, it is not a replication of battlefield tactics.[/QUOTE]

If I understand things correctly, the majority of what we consider Koryu Martial Traditions today were never really ashigaru/footsodier style training. In fact, they would often just be taught the basic movements of a weapon (for example, with a spear, thrust, retrieve, thrust again), and sent out to the front lines. The martial arts, though, were originally taken from the individual skill sets of particular warriors, and were based more on individual combat. That is not to say that it precluded battlefield usage, just that it was a higher skill set, and not something that was the regular.

If you look to the origin stories of pretty much any system, it will talk about one individual, and how they got the particular insights that became the foundation for their style, but I have yet to see any that include "The founder then used his strategies for his Lords army, which proceeded to defeat the enemy...", or indeed, anything like it.

I have heard a story form China which claims that only the wealthy and priviliged could ever actually learn martial arts, as they were the only ones with the time to train, and the money to coax the hard-won secrets to survival out of the experienced warrior. The poor (peasants, conscriptees of the fuedal era) were simply too busy trying to keep food on the table.

[Kim Taylor]

If you look to the origin stories of pretty much any system, it will talk about one individual, and how they got the particular insights that became the foundation for their style, but I have yet to see any that include "The founder then used his strategies for his Lords army, which proceeded to defeat the enemy...", or indeed, anything like it.

I have heard a story form China which claims that only the wealthy and priviliged could ever actually learn martial arts, as they were the only ones with the time to train, and the money to coax the hard-won secrets to survival out of the experienced warrior. The poor (peasants, conscriptees of the fuedal era) were simply too busy trying to keep food on the table.

Not that I don't agree with your point that most soldiers on a battlefield have little training in, or use for the martial arts as we practice them (and as they were historically practiced) but Musashi explicitly states in the Gorin no Sho that his students are to take the insights they gain from his teachings on individual fighting and apply them to small and large group tactics on the battlefield.

And vice versa. See the small in the large and the large in the small is the idea.

Kim Taylor

[Hissho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxuQ5ahRJ4#t=2m50s

The only group tactics clip I can remember seeing.

That is WAY cool, it'd be very neat to see their other group stuff.

Incidentally, the weapon that with a certainty was the primary "battlefield" tool, and that would have little use outside of an open combat context.

[PiersonJ]

Based on what I know, most martial art styles were invented for individual combat. Mugairyu, Itoryu, Yagyu Shinkageryu, were all arts founded after the Warring States Period, meaning they did not have the recent memories of war imprinted upon their creator's minds when the systems were being devised.
Though I take that back, as Yagyu Sekishusai did serve in countless battles, we are more ready to recognize Munenori or Jubei, who served in few, if any battles.

It is thusly that without this combat experience that their arts deteriorated into dueling arts. Though, as stated prior, the mindset of dueling is that if one can take down another, then one can take down ten others. That the lessons learned in martial arts were applicable to large scale warfare in the sense that the theories and understandings of combat can be applied to an entire army.

Most combat arts, Jigen ryu notably from what I've heard, focuses on constantly moving, due to a combat awareness of everything going on on the battlefield.

Ultimately, you wouldn't swing a naginata or a yari around in a formation as you would when confronted on a moonlit night on a veranda while assailed by ninja, just as you wouldn't swing a naginata in a house. The applications are limited by the environment, but your technical understanding of the weapon is not.

So then the battlefields arts were limited by the quick and imprecise effects of speed and strength, whereas the calm peace of the Edo period allowed most styles to perfect their moves and examine the effects on the human anatomy, thus we see that in some stabbing attacks with a sword, there is a definite angling to the sword to deal with the opponent's ribcage, a detail not commonly thought of when being conscripted to battle after battle.

So where koryu arts used on the battlefield? Yes, I'd say. In the sense that generals put their understandings of combat to work and that lower-ranking samurai put their techniques and prowess to work in the skills they were taught by an impromptu instructor.

Edit: Sorry to add on to this incoherent post, but also:


In the end, what is battlefield combat at its most base idea? One man versus another man to the death. One wins and one dies. Multiplied by a few thousand, we then have a battle. If a person survived, they took this knowledge and founded their own style and school. If this was learned and taken into battle, it was used and propagated, provided the students lived.

[Josh Reyer]

Based on what I know, most martial art styles were invented for individual combat. Mugairyu, Itoryu, Yagyu Shinkageryu, were all arts founded after the Warring States Period, meaning they did not have the recent memories of war imprinted upon their creator's minds when the systems were being devised.
Though I take that back, as Yagyu Sekishusai did serve in countless battles, we are more ready to recognize Munenori or Jubei, who served in few, if any battles.What is commonly known as "Yagyu" Shinkage-ryu was created by Kamiizumi Ise-no-Kami Hidetsuna sometime in the 1550s, smack dab in the middle of the Warring States period. Sekishusai, as you note did participate in a fair number of battles, receiving a citation of valor in the service of Matsunaga Hisahide. Indeed much of the Yagyu family did. Sekishusai's oldest son, Toshikatsu, was shot and wounded twice in battle, becoming an invalid, and his fourth son Muneaki killed 18 men in battle before being shot down. Munenori was at the Battle of Sekigahara and both winter and summer sieges of Osaka Castle. Toshikatsu's oldest son, Sumitoshi, was killed in battle during one of Hideyoshi's Korean campaigns. Toshikatsu's second son (and 3rd soke of Shinkage-ryu) Hyogonosuke fought in at least one rebellion, and his son Kiyotoshi was in turn killed at the Shimabara Rebellion.

It is thusly that without this combat experience that their arts deteriorated into dueling arts.There was no such deterioration in Shinkage-ryu. Various innovations were created for fighting without armor, but the kata and kuden for fighting in armor were retained.

[Hissho]

I think Karl Friday's essay "Off the Warpath" is good reading on this subject. As well, Thomas Conlan's work on battlefield data. The vast majority of injuries were shootings - with either arrows or (later) guns, which appears reflected in the Yagyu family's history Josh noted above.

Spitballing with what seems (to me) a common sense modern equivalent:

Dr. Friday points out that swords would be the sidearm. To modern thinking, that is the backup weapon, what you transition to when your primary goes down. The handgun of modern warriors.

Not a first choice for battle when keeping distance and getting good hits on a guy will prevent the much more dangerous prospect of fighting hand to hand with him. But certainly a necessity.


Then, close combat/jujutsu with broken weapons, swords, and short blades. In extremis, survival based stuff for when things REALLY went wrong. One thing older jujutsu systems seem to take into account is more "survival" oriented asymmetric engagement stuff - its not two guys squaring off at an acceptable distance and starting with equal initiative (as in sport/dueling), its one guy on the ground with another guy grabbing his head with a knife at his throat....the kinda things that could occur on a battlefied after you got unhorsed, got shot and went down, or while you were busy fighting another guy and a second guy came up and grabbed you from behind.


These are tactical "warrior survival" systems, they are not "swordfighting" or "grappling" schools. They demonstrate a layered approach to different levels of threat that one would typically face in combative situations. Almost certainly the sword and close combat schools would have been balanced by bow, gun, or long weapon ryu within the teaching of a han, if the single entity did not contain those teachings to begin with (sogo bujutsu).

In the absence of wars and actual organized battles, it makes sense that the sidearms (much more readily carried in day to day town life) and close combat (normal distance for social intercourse in town/city life generally being closer at the start of "festivities" than on a battlefield) would become the defining medium of combative arts - that is what people faced day to day.

It makes little sense that a warrior or townsman would conduct his daily affairs about town, at the brothel, at the gambling den and the kabuki threater (not that a respectable bushi frequented any of those places....) carrying a bow or a 7' long spear everywhere. It would be just as odd for a soldier to come home from Iraq and wearing his rifle and magazines around with him for self defense. Though in either case, either fighter would prefer the bow or the rifle over the sword or handgun for "serious business."


This seems to be reflected in curriculums like that of the Shinkage ryu (per Josh's post), and others, that have been written about quite a bit. Many have "battlefield" teachings, they have "armed self defense" teachings, they have "dueling" or in the case of jujutsu "taryu jiai" teachings, depending on age and development of the ryu, often in the same school.

It makes sense that some schools started later would skip the battlefied element (or that older schools would simply drop it from the curriculum) as the self defense or dueling stuff because that was what they faced on a regular basis. As well, some clearly kept and continued to pass on the earlier stuff for a variety of reasons.

[DDATFUS]

Dr. Friday points out that swords would be the sidearm. To modern thinking, that is the backup weapon, what you transition to when your primary goes down. The handgun of modern warriors.

Not a first choice for battle when keeping distance and getting good hits on a guy will prevent the much more dangerous prospect of fighting hand to hand with him. But certainly a necessity.

Just as food for thought, even during the First World War military doctrine stated that it was impossible to win a battle with gunfire. Bullets were great for wearing the enemy down and weakening their resolve, but the bayonet charge was considered essential for actually breaking the enemy ranks and driving them from the field. While experts debate whether or not that was actually true by the time the First World War rolled around, my understanding is that during an age of slow-loading, relatively inaccurate muskets it was indisputably the case.

I've yet to research Japanese tactics of the Sengoku Jidai extensively, but it's not hard for me to imagine the bushi using the sword in the same way that the western infantryman might use a bayonet. Wait till the enemy line is wavering under the barrage of fire and then send in a charge of your most fearless troops, swords in hand, screaming at the top of their lungs to break the enemy lines and drive them from the field.

[Scott Harrington]

A battlefield art is one where a large amount of men try, by strategy and tactics, to overcome another group, usually by inflicting great casualties. The method of strategy and tactics is generally only taught at high levels (and then not always understood.) The overcoming methods are where most martial arts come from. The inflicting great casualty is very rarely taught because it is dangerous to teach, it is morally ambiguous, and it creates someone who can kill easily.

The koryu (from what has been presented so far to the West) covers a wide range of techniques that cover walking down a back alley with protection, restraining someone, dueling techniques, battlefield techniques, strategy and tactics, etiquette, some strange mental mindsets, some mundane veteran tips, logistics (boring but important) and physical exercises.

So, which part do you want?

If you want to get close to a koryu battlefield, join an American Civil war reenactment group, suit up, and go to the largest event you can (some have exceeded 10,000 men.) It involves Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry moving to overcome another group minus the great casualties.

Thus it is a rather large outside dojo. No one gets killed (there are a few injuries), the interactions of different forces can be seen, strategy and tactics are shown (not often learned), and it is surprisingly authentic. You will learn how the ground shakes during a cavalry charge, the gunpowder smoke hugs the ground and masks the opponent, feel the fear of a large group of soldiers crossing a field to attack you and feel the exhilaration (and fear) of crossing a field to attack them. Neat!

Of course, it will take practice to learn the proper drill, how to fire your particular weapon, follow commands, set up a camp and live comfortably, when to listen and when to ignore the officers, stumble through battalion movements, learn the bayonet skills, and so on.

Wow, sounds just like being in the dojo.

Now, just remember that this applies to every period. From Pharaoh chasing Moses with his chariots, the Romans destroying Jerusalem, Genghis Khan ravaging across the Eurasian continent, Takeda Shingen trying and failing to finally break out of the boonies so he can unify Japan (for him – NOT), George Washington losing in the French & Indian War and winning in the Revolutionary War, Robert E. Lee deftly moving with each success and losing his only strength, his men, with every campaign, the Japanese using surprise to kick Russian Naval ass to victory and using surprise to kick American Naval ass to defeat; each period will have all the same components and all will be different.

The mounted bow leads on the battlefield, the naginata takes out the horse, the spear takes out the open order formation, and the gun takes out the spear.

While observing a video on kyujutsu (battlefield archery) I immediately observed that it was the same movements as Civil war skirmishers advancing across in open order. Advancing while firing, retreating, flank movements were all shown for a group of men. If you want koryu you have to train for koryu.

Now, you go to an instructor and say I want to learn battlefield deadly stuff. Against a sword. Yeah. Really applicable today. But. But. He can teach you skills, get you in shape, teach some discipline. And if he is very good, he can tell you about the fear (and exhilaration) of facing an opponent, how the smoke hugs the ground and that damn Cavalry shaking the ground can make you piss your pants just before you cut them down.

Scott Harrington
co-author of "Aiki Toolbox, Exploring the Magic of Aikido"
practitioner of American koryu arts

[Karl Friday]

I've yet to research Japanese tactics of the Sengoku Jidai extensively, but it's not hard for me to imagine the bushi using the sword in the same way that the western infantryman might use a bayonet. Wait till the enemy line is wavering under the barrage of fire and then send in a charge of your most fearless troops, swords in hand, screaming at the top of their lungs to break the enemy lines and drive them from the field.

Not exactly. The sengoku Japanese analog to modern European bayonets was the spear, not the sword. This was, BTW, true in Europe as well during the early modern era. Bayonets were simply a high tech version of pikes--initially they were just knives designed to fit in the barrel of a gun, converting a gun to a pike; later armorers figured out how to hang them below the barrel, so that soldiers could use their guns either as projectile or as bladed weapons.

Swords were employed on sengoku battlefields as self-defense weapons for officers (in exactly the way that handguns are used in modern armies), who generally were directing, not fighting; and as weapons of last resort by other troops. Suzuki Masaya and other scholars cite numerous examples in various kinds of sources of troops declining to engage the enemy because they have nothing to fight with but swords.

The idealized order of battle during the 16th century called for the two sides to shoot at one another (with bow & arrow prior to the 1550s, and with bows and guns thereafter) until one side broke, and then send in spearmen to mop things up.

[DDATFUS]

The idealized order of battle during the 16th century called for the two sides to shoot at one another (with bow & arrow prior to the 1550s, and with bows and guns thereafter) until one side broke, and then send in spearmen to mop things up.

Interesting. Thank you very much for that clarification.

Out of curiosity, was the spear used for such a charge the huge twelve-foot type that I usually see in sojutsu demonstrations or something smaller? While extremely long spears make for great defensive formations, my understanding-- which is very limited-- is that a proper mass charge with spears that large is rather difficult to do properly.

Also, I seem to recall that some armies-- Kenshin?-- used groups armed with the nodachi or nagamaki for breaking enemy formations. Is that accurate?

[Hissho]

Thanks for chiming in, Dr. Friday.

Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Karl Friday]

Out of curiosity, was the spear used for such a charge the huge twelve-foot type that I usually see in sojutsu demonstrations or something smaller? While extremely long spears make for great defensive formations, my understanding-- which is very limited-- is that a proper mass charge with spears that large is rather difficult to do properly.

Twelve foot spears are actually on the short end of the scale, for battlefield pikes. Sengoku armies sometimes deployed spears as long as 20 feet!

I'd have to go back to reread some of the new material on late medieval warfare to answer your question with confidence, but I'm reasonably sure that we're talking fairly long weapons here--probably in the 10 to 15 foot range. We're also, BTW, not really talking about a disciplined attack--no phalanxes or anything of that nature--more a go-get-'em-guys kind of mob charge, to pursue enemy troops running from the field.

Also, I seem to recall that some armies-- Kenshin?-- used groups armed with the nodachi or nagamaki for breaking enemy formations. Is that accurate?

Nodachi and nagamaki were mainly used in earlier--14th and early 15th century--armies. These weapons serve the same essential function--and were used in much the same way--as the naginata that were popular in earlier centuries. The problem with all three is that none are very practical weapons for use by troops fighting in rank, or in large numbers on a crowded battlefield. Accordingly, during the 15th and 16th centuries, they were displaced by a new form of straight, thrusting spear--the yari.

I doubt that nagamaki, naginata or nodachi would have been very useful against troops still holding in rank. Not only would the attackers have to cross through arrow (and/or gun) fire to get to the defenders, but they would then have needed to hack their way past the pikemen, who could form a denser line (since naginata, nagamaki and nodachi need considerable space to swing) and who held the advantage of a meter or two of range.

[Kim Taylor]

I doubt that nagamaki, naginata or nodachi would have been very useful against troops still holding in rank. Not only would the attackers have to cross through arrow (and/or gun) fire to get to the defenders, but they would then have needed to hack their way past the pikemen, who could form a denser line (since naginata, nagamaki and nodachi need considerable space to swing) and who held the advantage of a meter or two of range.

For comparison and possible clues as to what the nodachi might be doing, we might want to check out the German 2-handers which were around at the same time as the great pike warfare in Europe, if I remember right the two-handers were on the corners of the units to defend against horsemen, and maybe to knock the opposing pikes around to mess up their formation.

Don't know if the Japanese formations would be so tight and disciplined that they would need protection like that or not.

Kim Taylor

[DDATFUS]

Thanks, Dr. Friday. That was a very informative reply.

[Max Chouinard]

For comparison and possible clues as to what the nodachi might be doing, we might want to check out the German 2-handers which were around at the same time as the great pike warfare in Europe, if I remember right the two-handers were on the corners of the units to defend against horsemen, and maybe to knock the opposing pikes around to mess up their formation.

Don't know if the Japanese formations would be so tight and disciplined that they would need protection like that or not.

I think the Doppelsöldner place is not that much understood. But a popular hypothesis is that it was used to flank enemy pike ranks. Now I agree with Mr. Friday that launching an attack head on against a yari/pike formation is complete suicide, but if you can outflank them rapidly, then a slow moving 20 feet yari becomes rapidly useless against an attacker with a no dachi, nagamaki or even naginata. You negate it's reach advantage and all they have left are their uchigatana or shoto, so you now hold that advantage.

I think this image is quite relevant to illustrate the chaos of a pike melee (at least in europe): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad-war.jpg

[Daniel Mignerey]

I have heard off hand that the sohei never completely gave up their trademark naginata, though i have not been able to find out more on this.

anyone know about any good material on the late medieval period?

[Karl Friday]

I have heard off hand that the sohei never completely gave up their trademark naginata, though i have not been able to find out more on this.

Alas, neither the term sohei nor the association of temple warriors with the naginata have much real history--another cherished myth gone.:cry:

For details, check out Mickey Adolphson's Teeth & Claws of the Buddha (Hawaii, 2007).

[Daniel Mignerey]

Alas, neither the term sohei nor the association of temple warriors with the naginata have much real history--another cherished myth gone.:cry:


I find that very interesting. I know more than one school trace there naginatajutsu back to them. I am definitely going to read that book as they have always been interesting to me.

my professor's all say very nice things about you by the way

[Scott Harrington]

In regards to koryu, www.budovideos.com have several dvd's of arts that are performed in armor. Yagyu Shingan ryu has several with the practitioners going at it (clicking and clacking) completely armored - running from with and without the sword drawn.

There is also one that escapes my memory in armor and with a tachi and therefore older historically (check with Jake there.) And of course the hojutsu dvd's (gunnery) are done as on the battlefield.

As soon as troops gather in tight formations, tactics change drastically and the flank attacks as described by Maxime Chouinard above really come into play. Because of the general 3 - 1 rule regarding against attacking a defensive formation (even one static on the field because of the need to close ground) any chance 'to turn the flank' is a must without suffering high number of casualties.

I can imagine "shock troops" sweeping around with the long nagemaki and scary-as-hell nodachi and making short work of the ashigari, cutting into the rear of the formation, creating the famous CF that leads to a defeat.

Turnbull has written some about the various block formations used by the Samurai. This continued in Europe and America, best described by 19th century stategist Jomini, with an emphasis on geometric shapes. Some I think more for asthetics than applicability. Often standard formations seem to be "Sun tzu for Dummies" and not adapting to the situation. (It works 70% of the time so learn it - uh uh I think.)

That is why I have become a Boyd follower in examining combat, whether historical or modern, one on one or many in conflict with many. His Gulf War I strategy was superb, minimized USA casulalties, resulted in a stunning battlefield win and was squandered by Powell and Bush 1.

Scott Harrington
co-author of "Aiki Toolbox, Exploring the Magic of Aikido"
practitioner of American koryu arts