Which period had better swordsman vs which period had better swordsmanship? Two different questions. Moreover, is a good dualist effective on a battlefield (etc.)? Have to define the terms. Good video.
I think one way it could get ‘better’ is just by being the focus of schools, and becoming more complex and theoretized. Especially following the end of the sengoku-jedai and the mythologization of samurai with their emblematic swords. While in the Age of War martial arts were a mixed bag of specialties focused on practicality and doing the job. So time was spent actually fighting, and not looking deeply into technique and theoretizing.
Anthony is always good and a pleasure to see you again even if it’s over the web. I still have yet to acquire a few of your books yet. An answer to your question is very perplexing. The bow,the naginata, and the were pretty much the essential weapons for samurai that were on their feet or if they were mounted. They katana I think was like a last dish effort if anything else failed same thing with wakizashi.
Hi Antony, in my humble opinion, I think the training and technical analysis had improved over time. Just like anything now. I don't their fighting spirit was any different. You brought up a quote of a British observer of talking abouth the fighting spirit of the swordsmen of the 1800s. Sengoku and Muromachi warriors used battlefield experience and those lucky enough to survive became reveared. The men of the 1800s had a better understanding of those same skills and applied that knowledge to the streets. Yagu Munenori put character development concepts into his training, which is a nice addition to for us modern practioners of any martial art.
Based on my experience in situations where I needed to defend myself with machetes, there is a clear distinction between one-on-one dueling and fighting in larger groups. In duels, I could focus on more precise, surgical movements. However, in group scenarios, my approach needed to be much more direct and simplified, often resorting to targeting vital areas with forceful strikes. While I do not possess extensive knowledge of the Edo or Sengoku periods to provide a detailed historical analysis, my experience leads me to speculate that the transition from open battlefields to more urban environments may have emphasized civilian defense in confined spaces. This shift likely reduced the need for large-scale surveillance of opponents and instead required heightened situational awareness in tighter quarters, where dangers could be concealed in small, intricate areas, such as narrow streets or between buildings, as opposed to expansive battlefields. As swordsmanship adapted to these changes, the samurai class likely shifted its focus toward closer-quarter combat strategies. The urban environment may have rendered larger weapons or stances less practical, leading to the evolution of more complex techniques suited for confined spaces. Additionally, the samurai, no longer engaged in constant warfare, may have had more time to pursue spiritual and philosophical aspects of life, which could have influenced the development of martial arts in this period. As society progressed and shifted from a militant defense strategy to the establishment of a formal policing force, martial training likely evolved. Over time, this practical approach may have given way to a more spiritual or philosophical perspective, diluting some of the original combat practicality. Without regular testing of these movements in actual combat, the practical applications of swordsmanship may have gradually diminished, contributing to the state of Japanese swordsmanship as we see it today.
I like the fact you're asking questions. I'd guess it comes down to context. Age of war, that sword is a back-up, generally, because your main weapon is something else, and the guys you're trying to kill are generally wearing armour. Peacetime Edo, no armour, probably no other weapon. So.... But on the other hand, Edo period samurai often became brush-pushing office workers and bureaucrats. And most of them NEVER got into a sword fight. But a sengoku-period samurai fought. Which means.....? Depends on the bloke. I've known 5th dan black belts who whilst superb at doj-style "art", wouldn't last 5 seconds in a real fight. And conversely I've know 3rd Dan black belts who's technique isn't so good, who would kick my arse six ways from sunday and back again. I think mindset plays a big part. In a "real" combat situation, there's only one rule, and it's this; one of use isn't walking away from this, and is't NOT going to be me. Conclusion? A veteran samurai from 1580 against a desk-jockey samurai from 1780 is probably going to win, even if the guy from 1780 is technically "better" than him. Very long comment, sorry.
If you think of it, both things can be correct because the skills you need for war are probably not the same as the ones you need for dueling or urban self defense... nor is the same environment or kind of opponents.
That kinda depends. In WWII, the Japanese would send as many combat veterans as they could to the front lines to fight and kept using them as much as possible. This resulted in many of the people that knew what they were doing kicking the bucket in battle. Whereas the U.S. would send people for a tour or two and then have them come back and teach what they had learned. This led to the continual evolution of American tactics. If the Japanese in the Sengoku period used the same strategy as they did in WWII, I would venture to say that the swordsmanship was rather basic. In the Edo period, where fights were a little rare, but people would still train and spar, I could see room for swordsmanship advancing. But that relies on the Japanese using the same train of thought that they did in WWII.
Congratulations, Antony! And I'd say there are arguments on either side, for kenjutsu in general. Shurikenjutsu, though? Different story. Crime was rampant in the Edo period, and shurikenjutsu is a self defense art- very practical in the street, not so practical against men wearing armor. haha 👍👍
You're starting his Samurai tutelage very young I see 🤣🤣🤣 Thank you for the video 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Weapon and fighting styles will always evolve but it's definitely necessary to learn from the past. By doing that only then you can implement your own style and techniques to suit your own needs or you can have a combination of a few would be even better.
it depends on how one defines "better" or "worse." In the Edo Period, swordsmanship certainly became more structured, formalized, and refined. As the Edo Period went on, there became a greater focus on fighting an opponent not in armor. Not that this did not exist pre-Edo Period, but it was more of focus in the Edo Period that was more practical for what a "samurai" of the period were likely to encounter. This meant that more targets were open to attack, and more techniques could be used. Some ryuha continued to keep the armored elements of their curriculum, adding in or expanding to already existing unarmored techniques. Another change was that how one moved in swordsmanship changed. Footwork and body movement, especially in newly established schools of the Edo Period, was influenced by that of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which in turn took its footwork from Noh theater. This was when sliding the foot along the floor became the common form of footwork. I rambled on a bit. If I were to be asked, I am not sure that I could say that either was "better" or "worse" as both were developed or altered to fit what was considered most applicable to their situations. With one caveat, there can be some argument (and it has been made) that the use of the modern shinai and bogu (protective armor) in the 18th and 19th centuries was the start of sword training focusing more on hitting than cutting. Some schools tried to balance these out, and others focused more on the hitting. This could be considered and argued swordsmanship becoming worse because those schools that focused more on hitting were no longer learning how to use an actual sword. But that doe snot apply to all. While I personally am interested more in the pre-Edo combat, that does not mean that I think it is "better" nor that it is objectively "better."
I pretty much agree with everything in this comment. 👍🏻 This is probably a little off topic; but I sometimes take the (granted; somewhat simplified) view that modern Japanese - that is, modern Budō - sports fencing (i.e. kendo) and the modern versions of kata-based forms-training (e.g. iaidō) aren’t actually practical ‘swordsmanship’. ‘Kenjutsu’, understood as a tradition of bujutsu, is a better approximation of the discipline of ‘swordsmanship’. However; kendo is still useful for training in maintaining ‘the combative spirit’. Iaidō teaches fundamental form(s), concentration and situational awareness through the method of stylized and slightly exaggerated movements. Amongst other things (like ‘etiquette’). Nothing wrong with ‘getting the basics’ through systems like these. Still, if you want to be competent as a fighter - or indeed swordsman - of any sort, kata (or whatever your drills and forms-training are called in your particular school) needs to be balanced with sparring. You won’t win any fights in any scenario by starting a dance-off … 🕺🏻🤺 😁
On an off note, Don Roley recently posted a video on TH-cam about Ninjato. He essentially pinned the entire myth on Hayes. I made the mistake of replying to the video with a polite non-argumentative comment. His response was that of a real jerk! What is it with the Ninjutsu community that seems to draw such personality types?
Antony with hes Child now remindes me of the Samurai movie Lone Wolf and Cup in a positive way. Congratulations to your New born Boy. A young Samurai/Shinobi in the making.
Can't we agree that they transitioned from a style better fitted to use sword as a secondary weapon, against armored opponents, on a battlefield situation, to a style better suited to sword as a main weapon, against opponents in civil clothes, in a skirmish/street assassination situation? And that an excellent Edo street skirmisher wouldn't be as good as a good Sengoku battlefield warrior on a Sengoku battlefield, but an excellent Sengoku battlefield sword warrior would not be as good as a good Edo skirmisher in an Edo street skirmish? As you said, sports rules affect the way you train and perform, it's the same for every ruleset and the "rules" (and by rules I mean context and what is efficient in this context as per the laws of physics) of an armored battlefield where projectiles are raining and you all wield a yari mainly are not the same as the "rules" in an Edo street were your squad of jumped on by guys with a katana and civilian clothes.
Sengoku all day. The Sengoku period is rock & roll and heavy metal, while the Edo period is Taylor Swift and K-pop. The greatest and most famous swordsmen in history came from the sengoku period. Musashi, Sasaki Kojiro, Bokuden, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna, Yagyu Munetoshi, Yagyu Munenori - the list goes on and on. From a study of Nihonto perspective, the finest swords and swordsmiths came from the Koto or old school period which overlapped the Sengoku era. When there was no room for nonsense and only the best swords made the cut. The Edo period brought the Shinto or new school period of sword manufacture, and while it was more refined, the blades produced in this period pale in comparison to their earlier counterparts. There’s no question all art forms flourished during the Edo period and became more refined, but saying they got “better” is subjective opinion. I’ll take practical techniques and battle hardened experience over formalized refinement every time.
This might b lil off topic but wat are ur thoughts on korean swordmanship influenced by chinese/korean/ Japanese or do u think its totally korean based ur thoughts
Sounds like you're trying to lump two different types of sword fighting into one, which is the wrong premise. Sengoku swordsmanship which would be mostly war related, in armor, and leaning less towards self defense (assumption), and unarmored defense/dueling. Obviously as street fights and duels out of armor increase in frequency, that type of sword fighting will likely get better. Conversely with the lack of large scale battles and armored fighting that type of swordsmanship will decline. Obviously there is overlap and techniques and stuff but I think my main point is it's probably more complicated than just "swordsmanship got better/worse". It would be more accurate to say swordsmanship changed due to a differing environment and different set of goals it needed to accomplish. I think a good analogy would be how in late medieval Europe rapiers evolved as a sword type and fighting system primarily for unarmored dueling. Doesn't make rapiers a "better" system then older ones, just different because it needed accomplish different goals in a different context.
Difficult to say without direct observation of the past. I'd believe her though because all the enthusiasts from the Sengoku would exchange ideas during the Edo. You at least have that going for it, building upon the past, even if it was during peacetime.
A soldier may kill someone with his bare hands, but never beat a boxer in the ring. The straight sword has proven to be superior in duels but the curved sabre has been used far more in combat. So situation is everything, if the sword were used more in one on one fights they got better at that.
I typed out this whole thing, hit the four minute mark, and you said what I was thinking- only with infinately more authority and articulation. I totally agree. I mean, even "gravity" (falling off buildings, horses, or from exhast on the battlefield) probably resulted in more death than active fencing. It makes sense, with the sword schools popping up after the Boshin War.
I don't think this is the right question on some level. At least I wouldn't use the word better. I would say formalised, there was a greater mechanic for preserving technique, lessons and knowledge. It raised the basic skills of many. It made the average sword fighter a more consistent threat, a more varied threat on some level. I think there's an answer to the question which is Yes, both. For different contexts, in formation work, close battles, skirmishing on more open fields, the earlier were better in that regard. They used it as part of a larger assortment of weapons, as one part of their combat. They had a weapon that they could bring to many situations and at least in theory, be confident in. The later samurai, Edo period, were better combatants in the scope of the world they lived. In those closer places, in those conditions. Not only that, they were more practised on some level. They were as dangerous as they had to be for the world they lived in was dangerous. They were skilled with and against the sword, less so a broad range of weapons. That's not to say a Sengoku period samurai wouldn't do well in the Edo period or the other way round. There would be a learning phase, an adaptation phase. Places and times where they swordsmanship they knew was incompatible or unsuited. Not everyone was a Yagyu, Musashi, founder of any of the other famous forms, schools. Later on, more had the ability to do so because of the preserved knowledge, the formalised systems that could teach you, without arms being separated from bodies. I don't think the states are mutually exclusive, given a little context and awareness of what was thought of, expected of swordsmanship of the time.
@@AntonyCummins Not to sound like Matt Easton too much, context. The winner of any duel is the person most rested and ready for it. Whoever can set the tone and nature of the combat. Whoever can control that combat. Whoever can make it an out of context problem for the other and upset them. I could offer countless examples where one would have an advantage over another and how, but each step steps further away from the question. I don't know what better swordsmanship is, it's either good enough to keep you alive or not. Was the art, forms better developed? Sure. Would I say the average quality of swordsmanship better in the later period? Sure. Would they do as well without the sword? Eh.... that I wouldn't want to make any claim to. The duel and small unit I'd preference the Edo period, the less structured, the battlefield, even perhaps armoured combat. As far as I know, we don't have time machines, we can't just go back in time, grab someone, make the Edo guy use a tachi and the Sengoku guy use a katana, so I don't think we'll ever get an answer. A formalised art can be just as dangerous as an informal one, it's the matter of the user, wielder to make the most of it.
Oh… and while there would be outliers in each time period, my intuition is that Christa is likely correct. In the later period, there seems to have been more individual sword duels, which would have necessitated greater sword skills and tactics in individual sword combat. The early period warriors had to deal more with battlefield formations and projectile weapons (like you mentioned). That being said, the context of the combat would be a huge factor. For instance, the earlier period samurai would likely have been more effective on a battlefield and less effective in a sword duel. Conversely, later period swordsmen would likely have been more effective in duels and less effective on a battlefield.
@AntonyCummins The trends which emerged during the long peace--prioritizing hierarchy and seniority rather than martial proficiency and practicality; pseudo-religious worship of tradition for its own sake, etc--which became solidified in the modern age have effectively killed meaningful Japanese swordsmanship training. 99% of every other dojo never ever spar. Just choreographed forms and cutting passive targets. It's becoming more and more a circus act sideshow. Armchair warriors arguing about whose lineage is more legit and whose certificate or scroll is more impressive. It's pathetic. TennenRishin spars and spars seriously; as they should. Some Hokushin Itto ryu pretend to spar but do so poorly and barely manages to embody the intensity and skill of even mediocre sport kendoka. Swordsmanship, like any combat system, either continues to pressure test its curriculum through vigorous sparring and for the sake of continuous improvement and evolution, or else it becomes a performative dance. Just my honest opinion.
Hello Mr Cummins 🙏. Hope all is well glad to see you still at it 🥷. You probably don’t remember me but we spoke on Facebook a while back. Around 2009. I subscribed to your channel looking forward to what you have to share 🙏🙏🥷
Many thanks to both of you 👍
Which period had better swordsman vs which period had better swordsmanship? Two different questions. Moreover, is a good dualist effective on a battlefield (etc.)? Have to define the terms. Good video.
A young samurai in the making
Nice to meet Arthur what a lad and cool wow Samurai dealt with a lot more than just swords
I think one way it could get ‘better’ is just by being the focus of schools, and becoming more complex and theoretized. Especially following the end of the sengoku-jedai and the mythologization of samurai with their emblematic swords. While in the Age of War martial arts were a mixed bag of specialties focused on practicality and doing the job. So time was spent actually fighting, and not looking deeply into technique and theoretizing.
Anthony is always good and a pleasure to see you again even if it’s over the web. I still have yet to acquire a few of your books yet. An answer to your question is very perplexing. The bow,the naginata, and the were pretty much the essential weapons for samurai that were on their feet or if they were mounted. They katana I think was like a last dish effort if anything else failed same thing with wakizashi.
Hi Antony, in my humble opinion, I think the training and technical analysis had improved over time. Just like anything now. I don't their fighting spirit was any different. You brought up a quote of a British observer of talking abouth the fighting spirit of the swordsmen of the 1800s. Sengoku and Muromachi warriors used battlefield experience and those lucky enough to survive became reveared. The men of the 1800s had a better understanding of those same skills and applied that knowledge to the streets. Yagu Munenori put character development concepts into his training, which is a nice addition to for us modern practioners of any martial art.
Based on my experience in situations where I needed to defend myself with machetes, there is a clear distinction between one-on-one dueling and fighting in larger groups. In duels, I could focus on more precise, surgical movements. However, in group scenarios, my approach needed to be much more direct and simplified, often resorting to targeting vital areas with forceful strikes.
While I do not possess extensive knowledge of the Edo or Sengoku periods to provide a detailed historical analysis, my experience leads me to speculate that the transition from open battlefields to more urban environments may have emphasized civilian defense in confined spaces. This shift likely reduced the need for large-scale surveillance of opponents and instead required heightened situational awareness in tighter quarters, where dangers could be concealed in small, intricate areas, such as narrow streets or between buildings, as opposed to expansive battlefields.
As swordsmanship adapted to these changes, the samurai class likely shifted its focus toward closer-quarter combat strategies. The urban environment may have rendered larger weapons or stances less practical, leading to the evolution of more complex techniques suited for confined spaces. Additionally, the samurai, no longer engaged in constant warfare, may have had more time to pursue spiritual and philosophical aspects of life, which could have influenced the development of martial arts in this period.
As society progressed and shifted from a militant defense strategy to the establishment of a formal policing force, martial training likely evolved. Over time, this practical approach may have given way to a more spiritual or philosophical perspective, diluting some of the original combat practicality. Without regular testing of these movements in actual combat, the practical applications of swordsmanship may have gradually diminished, contributing to the state of Japanese swordsmanship as we see it today.
I like the fact you're asking questions. I'd guess it comes down to context. Age of war, that sword is a back-up, generally, because your main weapon is something else, and the guys you're trying to kill are generally wearing armour. Peacetime Edo, no armour, probably no other weapon. So....
But on the other hand, Edo period samurai often became brush-pushing office workers and bureaucrats. And most of them NEVER got into a sword fight.
But a sengoku-period samurai fought.
Which means.....?
Depends on the bloke. I've known 5th dan black belts who whilst superb at doj-style "art", wouldn't last 5 seconds in a real fight. And conversely I've know 3rd Dan black belts who's technique isn't so good, who would kick my arse six ways from sunday and back again.
I think mindset plays a big part. In a "real" combat situation, there's only one rule, and it's this; one of use isn't walking away from this, and is't NOT going to be me.
Conclusion? A veteran samurai from 1580 against a desk-jockey samurai from 1780 is probably going to win, even if the guy from 1780 is technically "better" than him.
Very long comment, sorry.
Makes sense.....In Sengoku period they used bows and spears more often. In peace time they relied more on the sword.
Good call!! Yari, bow and naginata are pretty primarily the essential weapons that a samurai would use.❤
If you think of it, both things can be correct because the skills you need for war are probably not the same as the ones you need for dueling or urban self defense... nor is the same environment or kind of opponents.
That kinda depends. In WWII, the Japanese would send as many combat veterans as they could to the front lines to fight and kept using them as much as possible. This resulted in many of the people that knew what they were doing kicking the bucket in battle.
Whereas the U.S. would send people for a tour or two and then have them come back and teach what they had learned. This led to the continual evolution of American tactics.
If the Japanese in the Sengoku period used the same strategy as they did in WWII, I would venture to say that the swordsmanship was rather basic. In the Edo period, where fights were a little rare, but people would still train and spar, I could see room for swordsmanship advancing. But that relies on the Japanese using the same train of thought that they did in WWII.
Congratulations, Antony! And I'd say there are arguments on either side, for kenjutsu in general. Shurikenjutsu, though? Different story. Crime was rampant in the Edo period, and shurikenjutsu is a self defense art- very practical in the street, not so practical against men wearing armor. haha 👍👍
Congratulations to you and the mom!
You're starting his Samurai tutelage very young I see 🤣🤣🤣 Thank you for the video 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Weapon and fighting styles will always evolve but it's definitely necessary to learn from the past. By doing that only then you can implement your own style and techniques to suit your own needs or you can have a combination of a few would be even better.
it depends on how one defines "better" or "worse." In the Edo Period, swordsmanship certainly became more structured, formalized, and refined. As the Edo Period went on, there became a greater focus on fighting an opponent not in armor. Not that this did not exist pre-Edo Period, but it was more of focus in the Edo Period that was more practical for what a "samurai" of the period were likely to encounter. This meant that more targets were open to attack, and more techniques could be used. Some ryuha continued to keep the armored elements of their curriculum, adding in or expanding to already existing unarmored techniques. Another change was that how one moved in swordsmanship changed. Footwork and body movement, especially in newly established schools of the Edo Period, was influenced by that of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which in turn took its footwork from Noh theater. This was when sliding the foot along the floor became the common form of footwork. I rambled on a bit. If I were to be asked, I am not sure that I could say that either was "better" or "worse" as both were developed or altered to fit what was considered most applicable to their situations. With one caveat, there can be some argument (and it has been made) that the use of the modern shinai and bogu (protective armor) in the 18th and 19th centuries was the start of sword training focusing more on hitting than cutting. Some schools tried to balance these out, and others focused more on the hitting. This could be considered and argued swordsmanship becoming worse because those schools that focused more on hitting were no longer learning how to use an actual sword. But that doe snot apply to all. While I personally am interested more in the pre-Edo combat, that does not mean that I think it is "better" nor that it is objectively "better."
Better meaning they would win
I pretty much agree with everything in this comment. 👍🏻
This is probably a little off topic; but I sometimes take the (granted; somewhat simplified) view that modern Japanese - that is, modern Budō - sports fencing (i.e. kendo) and the modern versions of kata-based forms-training (e.g. iaidō) aren’t actually practical ‘swordsmanship’. ‘Kenjutsu’, understood as a tradition of bujutsu, is a better approximation of the discipline of ‘swordsmanship’.
However; kendo is still useful for training in maintaining ‘the combative spirit’. Iaidō teaches fundamental form(s), concentration and situational awareness through the method of stylized and slightly exaggerated movements. Amongst other things (like ‘etiquette’). Nothing wrong with ‘getting the basics’ through systems like these.
Still, if you want to be competent as a fighter - or indeed swordsman - of any sort, kata (or whatever your drills and forms-training are called in your particular school) needs to be balanced with sparring. You won’t win any fights in any scenario by starting a dance-off … 🕺🏻🤺 😁
On an off note, Don Roley recently posted a video on TH-cam about Ninjato. He essentially pinned the entire myth on Hayes. I made the mistake of replying to the video with a polite non-argumentative comment. His response was that of a real jerk! What is it with the Ninjutsu community that seems to draw such personality types?
Antony with hes Child now remindes me of the Samurai movie Lone Wolf and Cup in a positive way. Congratulations to your New born Boy. A young Samurai/Shinobi in the making.
Hahahah nice daigaro
Congratulations on that beautiful baby
Young samurai already practicing his grappling skills with his sensi and father
Can't we agree that they transitioned from a style better fitted to use sword as a secondary weapon, against armored opponents, on a battlefield situation, to a style better suited to sword as a main weapon, against opponents in civil clothes, in a skirmish/street assassination situation? And that an excellent Edo street skirmisher wouldn't be as good as a good Sengoku battlefield warrior on a Sengoku battlefield, but an excellent Sengoku battlefield sword warrior would not be as good as a good Edo skirmisher in an Edo street skirmish?
As you said, sports rules affect the way you train and perform, it's the same for every ruleset and the "rules" (and by rules I mean context and what is efficient in this context as per the laws of physics) of an armored battlefield where projectiles are raining and you all wield a yari mainly are not the same as the "rules" in an Edo street were your squad of jumped on by guys with a katana and civilian clothes.
Sengoku all day. The Sengoku period is rock & roll and heavy metal, while the Edo period is Taylor Swift and K-pop.
The greatest and most famous swordsmen in history came from the sengoku period. Musashi, Sasaki Kojiro, Bokuden, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna, Yagyu Munetoshi, Yagyu Munenori - the list goes on and on.
From a study of Nihonto perspective, the finest swords and swordsmiths came from the Koto or old school period which overlapped the Sengoku era. When there was no room for nonsense and only the best swords made the cut. The Edo period brought the Shinto or new school period of sword manufacture, and while it was more refined, the blades produced in this period pale in comparison to their earlier counterparts.
There’s no question all art forms flourished during the Edo period and became more refined, but saying they got “better” is subjective opinion. I’ll take practical techniques and battle hardened experience over formalized refinement every time.
Congrats on the baby Ant.
I think rising block would be alot more effective if we had more samurai armor sleeves, and I had a bigger armor forge for lionentech to be the best.
I do believe swordmanship got better with time, same with grappling, there is a reason why sumo matches have more kimarites as time goes by
This might b lil off topic but wat are ur thoughts on korean swordmanship influenced by chinese/korean/ Japanese or do u think its totally korean based ur thoughts
I’m researching this at the moment
👉 I currently have FOUR of your books. 💯👍
Sounds like you're trying to lump two different types of sword fighting into one, which is the wrong premise. Sengoku swordsmanship which would be mostly war related, in armor, and leaning less towards self defense (assumption), and unarmored defense/dueling. Obviously as street fights and duels out of armor increase in frequency, that type of sword fighting will likely get better. Conversely with the lack of large scale battles and armored fighting that type of swordsmanship will decline. Obviously there is overlap and techniques and stuff but I think my main point is it's probably more complicated than just "swordsmanship got better/worse". It would be more accurate to say swordsmanship changed due to a differing environment and different set of goals it needed to accomplish.
I think a good analogy would be how in late medieval Europe rapiers evolved as a sword type and fighting system primarily for unarmored dueling. Doesn't make rapiers a "better" system then older ones, just different because it needed accomplish different goals in a different context.
I dislike the idea of sengoku period is just armour based. I will do a video
Difficult to say without direct observation of the past. I'd believe her though because all the enthusiasts from the Sengoku would exchange ideas during the Edo. You at least have that going for it, building upon the past, even if it was during peacetime.
Yes I believe Chista Jacobson is right because Swords were used more often during the Edo period. Things always get better with time.
Congratulations 👍
A soldier may kill someone with his bare hands, but never beat a boxer in the ring. The straight sword has proven to be superior in duels but the curved sabre has been used far more in combat. So situation is everything, if the sword were used more in one on one fights they got better at that.
Dad and son… 🥰
I typed out this whole thing, hit the four minute mark, and you said what I was thinking- only with infinately more authority and articulation. I totally agree. I mean, even "gravity" (falling off buildings, horses, or from exhast on the battlefield) probably resulted in more death than active fencing. It makes sense, with the sword schools popping up after the Boshin War.
I don't think this is the right question on some level.
At least I wouldn't use the word better. I would say formalised, there was a greater mechanic for preserving technique, lessons and knowledge. It raised the basic skills of many. It made the average sword fighter a more consistent threat, a more varied threat on some level.
I think there's an answer to the question which is Yes, both. For different contexts, in formation work, close battles, skirmishing on more open fields, the earlier were better in that regard. They used it as part of a larger assortment of weapons, as one part of their combat. They had a weapon that they could bring to many situations and at least in theory, be confident in.
The later samurai, Edo period, were better combatants in the scope of the world they lived. In those closer places, in those conditions. Not only that, they were more practised on some level. They were as dangerous as they had to be for the world they lived in was dangerous. They were skilled with and against the sword, less so a broad range of weapons.
That's not to say a Sengoku period samurai wouldn't do well in the Edo period or the other way round. There would be a learning phase, an adaptation phase. Places and times where they swordsmanship they knew was incompatible or unsuited.
Not everyone was a Yagyu, Musashi, founder of any of the other famous forms, schools.
Later on, more had the ability to do so because of the preserved knowledge, the formalised systems that could teach you, without arms being separated from bodies.
I don't think the states are mutually exclusive, given a little context and awareness of what was thought of, expected of swordsmanship of the time.
Better meaning they would win.
@@AntonyCummins Not to sound like Matt Easton too much, context.
The winner of any duel is the person most rested and ready for it. Whoever can set the tone and nature of the combat. Whoever can control that combat. Whoever can make it an out of context problem for the other and upset them.
I could offer countless examples where one would have an advantage over another and how, but each step steps further away from the question. I don't know what better swordsmanship is, it's either good enough to keep you alive or not.
Was the art, forms better developed? Sure. Would I say the average quality of swordsmanship better in the later period? Sure.
Would they do as well without the sword? Eh.... that I wouldn't want to make any claim to. The duel and small unit I'd preference the Edo period, the less structured, the battlefield, even perhaps armoured combat.
As far as I know, we don't have time machines, we can't just go back in time, grab someone, make the Edo guy use a tachi and the Sengoku guy use a katana, so I don't think we'll ever get an answer.
A formalised art can be just as dangerous as an informal one, it's the matter of the user, wielder to make the most of it.
Congrats on the baby 💛! And your shameless emotional appeal for financial support for the baby 😆😂🤣!
Oh… and while there would be outliers in each time period, my intuition is that Christa is likely correct. In the later period, there seems to have been more individual sword duels, which would have necessitated greater sword skills and tactics in individual sword combat. The early period warriors had to deal more with battlefield formations and projectile weapons (like you mentioned). That being said, the context of the combat would be a huge factor. For instance, the earlier period samurai would likely have been more effective on a battlefield and less effective in a sword duel. Conversely, later period swordsmen would likely have been more effective in duels and less effective on a battlefield.
She's wrong. Period.
And the Japanese man too?
@AntonyCummins The trends which emerged during the long peace--prioritizing hierarchy and seniority rather than martial proficiency and practicality; pseudo-religious worship of tradition for its own sake, etc--which became solidified in the modern age have effectively killed meaningful Japanese swordsmanship training. 99% of every other dojo never ever spar. Just choreographed forms and cutting passive targets. It's becoming more and more a circus act sideshow. Armchair warriors arguing about whose lineage is more legit and whose certificate or scroll is more impressive. It's pathetic. TennenRishin spars and spars seriously; as they should. Some Hokushin Itto ryu pretend to spar but do so poorly and barely manages to embody the intensity and skill of even mediocre sport kendoka. Swordsmanship, like any combat system, either continues to pressure test its curriculum through vigorous sparring and for the sake of continuous improvement and evolution, or else it becomes a performative dance. Just my honest opinion.
Hello Mr Cummins 🙏. Hope all is well glad to see you still at it 🥷. You probably don’t remember me but we spoke on Facebook a while back. Around 2009. I subscribed to your channel looking forward to what you have to share 🙏🙏🥷
That’s a long time ago
@@AntonyCummins yes it was lol.