@@abc4781 et al... sorry guys, forgot I used this account to reply, and only got the notification of today's response... honestly, it takes far too long to cover all the issues with Antony's video here... I did it when it first came up on a facebook group just after it was posted, though... it took 45 individual replies to get it mostly covered. You can read it (as well as rebuttal, if you're interested) here: facebook.com/groups/212076278963321/permalink/1448441891993414/ It's a public group, so shouldn't be any problem with accessing and reading it. But, in case you don't (it's a long thread, after all), I am the Australian representative for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, and a member of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu... and yeah, Antony gets pretty much every single thing wrong... as well as in his take on Shinkage Ryu... and, you know, pretty much everything he touches.
It took 20 seconds into your presentation to determine to that Musashi was to believed. Warfare doesn’t care about traditions or proper stances or any of that garbage. He was a skilled fighter and ruthless killer. Nothing more,nothing less.
Good point. Something else interesting happened at the beginning of the Edo period that supports this. During the Sengoku period, Samurai would learn and practice any art/style that they found to be practical and useful on the battlefield. But at the beginning of the Edo period, studying any art that was not of Japanese origin was outlawed. They wanted to preserve their history and culture and not have it tainted with foreign styles. It took until the early 1900s for even Okinawan arts like karate to even be allowed back in. The point being, as you said, the Sengoku Samurai didn't care about art, tradition, perfection in form, etc. Those are new things that became popular in the Edo period.
This parallels a lot with the Filipino martial arts. I realized that this may be very controversial for certain people, especially foreigners who've learned it. But it's kind of the "secret". There were no patterns before in the old days. The movements were very simple and it could be learned in a relatively short time. But in order to keep students, gain more students, and have a longer flow of income (and then other cases the "wow" factor behind it aka prestige) more was added until eventually became how Filipino martial arts are today.
Being an Arnis/Filipino Martial Arts practicioner myself, that is quite true. I practice under the Cinco Teros style of Arnis and my Maestro (who is currently an instructor at the Philippine Military Academy) made it clear that the traditional techniques, what others call the "combative aspect" of Arnis, is relatively simple and direct. Whereas the latter "sports" based stuff they do in modern tournaments is a lot more complex, they require much dexterity and agility to learn/ master.
They used to hack each other. That is why if you happen to scan your Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, there is a felony called Dueling. You don't see these kinds of cases anymore in today's jurisprudence. But back then, it was visceral.🤣
As an FMA practitioner who learned traditional way, I find this to be true. My Arnis de Mano master didn't like overly complicated movements, he was taught by his grandfather that learning forms and complicated movements is fine because it builds attribute but when you duel or fight, the simpler moves are much better. Nowadays, we see instructors teach complicated movements and fail to explain why the students need to learn it.
@@Historyfan476AD Especially considering that... I think Tokugawa's grandson, put down the order to use less silver in the coins, as it was putting a hurt on them economically... Which then pulled them out of it. Leaving me to wonder that in a nation of isolation, where would those coins be going that they're depleting the silver reserves hard enough to negatively affect their economy?
@@AnthonySforza I think it might be a lack of a proper navy big enough to fight the Chinese fleet, or maybe after Korea and its failure the Japanese leadership thought that fighting china and it's sphere of influence was to risky for there small island. Money alone cannot always buy your the numbers you need nor the experience of naval warfare on a large scale.
@@Historyfan476AD Well no... Or maybe. My point was more so about how if coins are being minted with (I think) 92% silver and dropping them down to (Again, I think) 80% silver, in a country that's supposed to be locked up, with nobody in or out... Where are those coins going? As being in a locked up country (Tokugawa's grandson, so late late 1600s, maybe super early 1700s), wouldn't they just be circulating around Japan's economy? So why would continuing to make them with 92% silver, begin to make them bankrupt? So I'm left to wonder, where such coins were going, if not into the Japanese economy?
I think the issue with Miyamato Musashi on a whole is that we don't have a concept of the context he lived under. Not only that, we also need to cut through a lot of the issues around translation, potentially lost sources, lost traditions. I think these comments are fair and hard to argue. Swordsmanship traditions, schools in the lifetime of Musashi were changing and changing dramatically. The change from a state being at war to a formal peace, allowed more formal, formalised schools to develop. Specifically schools that wouldn't survive the battlefields of earlier periods, were able to develop. I think he's got a solid argument, foundation. He's stating that, at least in the scope of my translation, that one should be careful of the new schools, the newer schools are to be questioned and perhaps less valued. Less valued specifically for the battlefield. He taught and advocated a more practical form of swordsmanship, if you're opponent does something and relies too much on a single trick, type of trick, technique, don't listen to them. I believe that Musashi would advocate a more rounded, more practical, form of swordsmanship. For Musashi I would argue that the point of training is to be ready for battle, for a battle to the death. Don't piss around, don't make it too formal, don't put rules in front of battle. To survive battle you should be ready for battle, not a bout in the training yard. Don't go into battle expecting that it is going to be like the dojo, training yard. It's on some level why I prefer Talhoffer over Leichtenaurer on the HEMA side. Leichtenaurer is going on about these master strokes and tricks that your opponent could never know, have no counter for. Talhoffer is quite the opposite. Here, do you want to live after the duel? Do this, it works, it's blunt, brutal and ugly, but you're going to be alive and your opponent is dead. That's the best outcome for you. So I think it's easy to see and say Musashi is against the rise of the formal schools of swordsmanship. I think he is. I also think the text, Book of Five Rings, comes from a period where he was still, if you'll pardon the expression, chilling out. There's a bit of the old crustiness in some of the tone, choice of words. I think he would tell you, if you're wanting to dance, go and dance. Don't take those lessons to the sword and battle. There he's not wrong. At least, not wrong to me. However, he might be the wrong voice, wrong lesson for the time he was writing.
@@mykaratejournal2120 Glad I said it in a way you got. This stuff is pretty complex and it's something that can easily be buried in explanation, translation, explanations of context.
Hi Antony! Just subscribed! From what I've been able to learn about Musashi, it seemed he was a very rough, brash character, at least when he was in his prime, fighting the wars in the Sengoku period. His way with the sword was to cut his opponent down so that they never get back up to threaten you again. In the Warring States era, swordplay was less aesthetically pleasing, but had more to do with making sure your opponent stays down. To win a battle or war, the opponents must be cut down in order to claim victory. Musashi and his style has more to do with effectiveness rather than beauty. It doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to work. Similar to Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do, and incorporating the most effective ways to floor your opponent, while removing the less practical maneuvers, it seemed Musashi's way with the sword was to end the threat as quickly and effectively as possible. You do not need to look pretty in a battle, so long as you are the only one standing after it is over.
in HEMA we have something similar in the Holy German Empire throught 1400 -> 1500 where swordmanship is appropriated by the middle class (bourgeois). They produced fencing treaties based on a grand master teachings (Johannes Liechtenauer : there is no evidences for is existence though, and his teachnig is none descriptive (we only understand it from his commentators)). A manuscrit however (MS 3227a) warn the reader to be aware that the fencing they can see nowaday is "appalling to watch" and give his version of how the grand master fencing "was" (less convoluted guards, the sword is thrown right at the head without regards for the opponent weapon,...). But each style is pertinent in is right context. When we try the "real" one for play (much like capoeira) it don't work well, and when we try the "gentleman" one with free blows (combat simulation) it doesn't shine either. Morality ? Don't use a hammer to drive screws : you can make it work but, anybody can tell you're doing something wrong !
Consider Price's Law (look it up before reading the rest). Also, from my personal experience, highly HIGHLY skilled people often think 1.) they have the answer/s to how they have succeeded 2.) that they can teach/pass along their knowledge/techniques. This often fails. Think about it...e.g. a "student of" (Bruce Lee, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Michael Jordan, Einstein, Hendrix, Mozart, Joe McMoneagle, Marlon Brando, whoever) often falls short of reaching their teacher's level. My hypothesis is this: Musashi may have been one of those badass motherfuckers that, for the same mysterious reasons surrounding rare human potentials, was just that - a badass motherfucker. Sure, you may learn something (but possibly learn something more effective for you from somewhere else), but you may never be Musashi. So, don't get discouraged from pursuing a level beyond mastery, but have the understanding you may never get there.
History is the best teacher. The martial arts I am familiar with have gone through a period of transition to include sport/competition. How you train is how you fight so I agree with Mushashi's analysis. There was a turn back to some realism with the advent of Toyama Ryu where the combative side of Iaido was designed for military use, to train Japanese officers. For example, they do everything standing up so there is no sitting down kata. Toyama Ryu is a modern incarnation of old ways but it makes the point that when training for war, there are no sports or competition involved. I believe that was Mushashi's main point.
I disagree that one could like or agree with only one or the other school of thought. Sword play or broadly any martial art has both physical and psychological aspects. Both equally important. It seems the swordsmen of pre-Musashi time had a larger focus on self-preservation while the ones that came later focused more on self-perfection instead. From what was essentially the same art, they picked what was more relevant to them and I believe that is why Musashi also wrote "There are more than one path to the top of the mountain." What matters is not the path one chooses but how much conviction one walks it with (If you train a fighting art for self-preservation long enough, you will find the spiritual you and if you diligently train the art for self-perfection, you will find the warrior you somewhere on the way.)
Everybody did it “right” according to their own goals. Musashi held the intent to kill. Next generations wanted to dance with sword play. The only mistake would be to think that they were as skilled/useful as samurai past.
You can see that the same thing happens in European swordsmanship. The same thing also happened to jujutsu and karate. Just at different times. Essentially, when war was no longer a part of everyday life, they began practicing for things that they could still do such as art and spirituality. Marketing also had a lot to do with it. If you were a well trained swordsman living at the beginning of the Edo period, you would have a hard time selling "I can teach you to be a brutal killer." People didn't need that anymore. At least not to the same degree. But people always like feeling superior to their peers, so sport fencing became popular. Just like how jousting and fencing in Europe did. It became a game. Just how in the late 1800s, judo became the art to study for fitness, sport, and such. Later followed by karate in the early 1900s. I would almost go as far as to make the bold statement that this happened to every fighting art. So, if you are interested in how the Samurai actually fought in the Sengoku era, then Musashi is more correct. If you are interested in the historical preservation of samurai culture, again, Musashi is correct. But his books don't really go into specifics. He talks more about broad concepts and principles. And these are important. But if we want to get a more accurate picture, we need to find treatises written during the Sengoku period, not after.
Musashi was not a Sengoku samurai. He was born around the pre Edo period. He become active as a master swordsman almost before Tokugawa Ieyasu retired as Shogun
Within the historical context, the Yagyu were literally the Tokugawa shogunate's secret police serving the Shogun directly from their capital in Edo. Their new style was designed for police work in the new shogunate's new age of peace. Musashi instead lived his life after Sekigahara wandering around then serving as adjunct militant for a daimyo who kept his personal army and still served in a military role. Unlike the Yagyu, he was still fighting on battlefields when he wrote his book, and his battlefields were more limited because of the Tokugawa firearms control laws. When the bumpkin daimyo quarreled with arms in the Tokugawa era, they had to resort to older weapons because the use of firearms and cannons would have attracted intervention from the shogunate, so the old style of swordsmanship still had some life within that environment. This was what Musashi experienced as opposed to the Yagyu. Musashi was of course correct within the context of what he was saying and the context of his own life while the Yagyu were of course equally correct within the context of what they were doing. In the long run, the Yagyu way was proven better because it kept swordmanship relevant as an art and a tool for public order long after regional combat in the old style had disappeared.
Ignoring all of the duels and legends surrounding him, he was still a veteran of numerous battles in which he took part in a close and intimate manner. Any professional of any trade can look at someones technique and know what results can be expected. An experienced eye can see through bravado and subversion.
@@AntonyCummins yeah, lol. That was a bit of a premature comment. Just now finishing video. I very much liked the points at the end about the brutality of a sword fight. All that kendo training goes out the window in a real sword fight.
@@AntonyCummins Reminds me of a part from the book snowcrash by Neil Stephenson. Check out this excerpt. Exactly what you were talking about at the end of the video....th-cam.com/video/cvyOwvMgiS4/w-d-xo.html
-- The art of war (samurai ) at certain times did become tame and the practice became a fashion and sporting culture that favored sparring and 'jousting' and of course the wealthy took up the profile and wardobe. The younger Musashi was not a gentleman and came from a more practical and applied discipline that was no sporting event or clinic.
Wow, really? Remind me to explain that to Kajiya soke, 12th head of his school, that neither he, nor the previous 10 generations actually learnt Musashi's school... or do you want to retract that ill-informed statement?
@@DANTHETUBEMAN son, I train in the school. Musashi very specifically passed it on to Terao Kyumanosuke, who suggested that Musashi's adopted son Iori should take the reins... he refused, honouring Musashi's choice of Terao. The school has continued since. Musashi also left his bokuto, inscribed with a direction to continue the school "without adaptation", giving it the name Jisso Enman no Bokuto. Musashi passed on his school to continue it. He did this with his earlier Enmei Ryu, and with Niten Ichi Ryu. The Gorin no Sho is a document of transferal of the school as a form of Menkyo. You, simply, have no idea what you're talking about. Where do you think Musashi wrote that he was not passing his school (fighting style) on?
@@machtheknife2751 you should have read it by now, you are even worse you studied it and don't know what your talking about proving musashi right no one understands his method
To find out what works, you have to spar full-speed. Use protection and adapted weapons even if you dont do it every training class. Thats what I am gonna do when I start teaching. You have to go for the cut and keep it as realistic as you can. Most likely I am gonna discard a lot of stuff over the years.
The reason most of the sword fighting today doesn't seem right as maybe how Musashi observed is because most of who are practicing swords during the peaceful time are not as bold and determined as the swordsmen of his time where in order for you to find an opening to strike an opponent you need to get in and set up a trap, yes it's risky but it's always the better man who wins. That's the mind-set Samurai had back then during his time. It's the true embodiment of Bushido. We notice in modern days even in Hema they seem to have high regard in being safe than determined to finish off their opponent (of course it's illegal). I think that's the absence of the entire element why sparring nowadays doesn't look right. It's all footwork, running, avoiding getting inside the opponent's attack zone etc. During the height of the Musha Shugyo in Japan once a duel commenced, first thing the two swordsmen establish is the Ma-ai or being inside of each other's kill zone it's like being inside a cage they can't go out anymore. If one goes out the Ma-ai retracted away or backwards, the other man will not pursue him until he gets back to reset the Ma-ai. No dancing, no cha-cha. Only one decisive strike and that's all it's needed
Thank you for the video I honestly feel you can appreciate both for different reasons. One can study something to better the self, or one can study something for objectives outside the self. In this case that something being sword work for peace (a reflection of inner peace) or killing (a reality of surviving/winning battles)
I Read THE Five rings for THE second time yesterday, with Swedish translation..An author by THE name Stefan Stenudd translated it to Swedish.. he also translated tao te ching
I think Musashi meant that it is not a good idea to learn one particular fighting style only . If you want to live to an old age that is . I think a lot gets lost in translation as well .
The big secret in marital arts is the length of time between people killing each other and how effective the art is. You only have to look at boxing to see the change that happens between bare knuckle and gloves. I got told off in Aikido because they do this move a lot with the open hands which is supposed to make peoples head move, and I did fingers strikes which did make people move there head.
Better to capture a daimyo and sell him for ransom than to kill him, there is also respect and honour in sparing your opponent, a life debt is sometimes worth it.
I recently discovered your channel Anthony and the topics are quiet interesting. Now, I am very very new to swordsmanship ( I recently started studying the Edo line of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu) but I gotta tell you there is nothing I have seen during practice that is “soft” or “don’t injure your enemy” kind of technique. On the contrary, we go for the kill. But like I said I am a total beginner so I won’t give an opinion just that remark. I enjoy watching your channel and I will keep trying to learn more on the subject 👍
If you read his book he suggests learning all other schools. He said aspects of them were no good. He then says to look into it for yourself. And If you were able to beat every school in your country and time period wouldn't you wonder if you were really good, or if everyone else just sucks. That gets discussed at the beginning of the book as well, a sentiment he shares. Have you read his book? You can like Musashi and the others too. Not contradictive if your studying them equally. They are ancient history bro, and all have valuable things to teach us, but it is up to ourselves to determine what is practical today.
Like the shoalin temple of today more about performance than fighting!! Though there are a few shoalin monks that are lethal!! I was there! In 2005 !! I miss it!!
Musashi all the way, he was a Buddhist but when fighting it's kill or be killed. He didn't try to justify killing through Buddhist teachings as to do so would be absurd, he was honest and said Buddhism is Buddhism art is art and war is war etc. I appreciate the self improvement aspect of all martial arts and believe in it whole heartedly, however that's because I can, I live in a relatively peaceful society. In a war like society, fancy moves are out and effective killing is in, this is exactly what happened in Japan. Just my opinion. Effective training with a weapon, if your training for more than fitness or spiritual self improvement must in my opinion, have one eye on the weapons original purpose.
I think we ought to be somewhat careful regarding Musashi and his deeds, due to the dearth of primary sources. The only 1st hand accounts seem to be from the man himself, (and extremely scanty,) whereas the earliest secondary accounts appear about nine years after his death, none of which agree with each other, apparently. For example, if we take his negative opinions regarding long-swords on one hand, it doesn't match with his (supposed) reliance on oversized bokken to win duels on the other. I don't know if we can draw any firm conclusions.
Musashi is right, because if one knows how to use a sword deferentially with a left or right hand,, that would means that it can use one sword in each hand, that will not contradict the left of right side technics that you commented and also doble the power and the variety of more effective technics
So did you say or out of context (who to follow) did you mention to follow Musashi or the schools of the time? Like older school street fighting or schools refining the practices? Which they did. Like what is considered sportsmanship today too.
Although I haven't heard the fruit and the flower specifically with shotokan, it sounds like what the grandmaster sensei would talk about... interesting with the evolution of the shinai and stuff...
yagyu were more diplomatic and suffisticated but behind that facade just as deadly if needed. also sword that kills sword that not kills refers mostly to killing to protect other peoples live. as for cutting hands,arms in stead of heads. hands,arms closest to sword so easy to cut. always cut what is in easy reach. if cut of hands, fingers like thumb person can not fight so good. as musashi yes he was good his style is more simple but contains many techniques also to be found in other styles.
If you haven't already, will you please explain the difference (if there is a difference) between odashi and nodashi? Are they two words for the same sword, or are they two different swords for different purposes? And separately, it's to my understanding that Musashi was not a samurai (or was not recognized as a samurai) because he didn't follow samurai protocol. Although, he was surely a sword master (Sword Saint). Thank you, Antony, for your work. You are appreciated.
Normally large tachi swords are divided into battlefield combat ones and ones for ceremony, like a dress sword and a combat sword. But i would need to check the kanji on those two. Even Ronin are samurai. In that time you were born a samurai and he was one. As i say even teh lowest samurai are still samurai. SOme people even debate that ashigaru are samurai.
What he means, is that he doesn't use other people's words directly. The book is in his own words. Of course philosophy was present, he wasn't saying it wasn't. He was just stating things practically from his own perspective, as true as he could, but states in the book that everyone is responsible for carving their own path, regardless of philisophical influences.
We, all realise that it's changed, but, we don't know what existed before! The knowledge is I won't say lost, but, it's very well hidden. Some are unfortunately modern inventions but there is still some historical context in there, and most of us only have experience in one style. Like you were showing there are 2 different ways to stop the blow and counter, but, which is right. That would need careful study and a group of people willing to train hard to see which is effective - that means getting in the Samurai armour and taking hits from blunt blades (I once took a hit in the teeth from a bokken - not fun) and that's just one movement from two different schools. The group would need to analyze all the schools to see that one's that would've worked, that means using Wakizashi, dual wielding, kogatana, tanto. It's like modern martial arts we all know moves that look cool in our respective styles that we would use in a demonstration and ones that work in real life with a little modification. It's that little modification we must keep in mind.
first up: congrats for the great work, you deliver it like the younger mike loads for samurai. to the topic who's right: The fewer rules and restrictions a martial art has and the simpler it is, the more effective it is. Also: The right mindset is extreme important. If you have one ruleless, determined man with basics, he wins against a advanced guy of the fanccy 96 stances, who never learned to "get in and to the job". Best today example: The chinese hobby MMA guy who continues to beat up kung fu masters and get screwed from the chinese government for it.
The problem with anything like this none of us mortals were there. Musashi I do believe was not a liar and some of his more well known duels did actually happen and others were written about this back then. Also musashi was a opportunist and was very resourceful and his early duels were kinda dirty tricks done by musashi but in a real fight as musashi knew early in his life there are no rules or etiquette in battle. So schools hated musashi and many practitioners today think he was a honourless vagabond and not a true samurai but later in life he definitely reflected and became a very modest and wise soul. But today if a nine year old beats a guy to death they wouldn't be called a Sword Saint!
Which samurai said: if i dont kill when i dont need to, the hand might hesitate when i need to kill. I've have heard this fraze many time in books and by people reading history books, but i cant remember who it was in the book. Anthony can you help me?
Hi, Ant, it's ol' Nick, back on my b.s., haha. I can't speak on koryu, but I can speak on kakutogi, since this same kind of thing is often echoed in modern ring martial arts. You have older fighters from the no holds barred, "Vale Tudo" days that complain about fighters today diluting mixed martial arts, that they aren't doing it right, etc. Even the Gracies say the same about Brazilian jiujitsu today, that grapplers of today focus too much on the sport and develop dumb habits like butt scooting, guard pulling, and techniques that can get them stomped in both mixed martial arts and in a street fight. On the other hand, you have fighters and grapplers today that offer begrudging respect to the fighters of old for their toughness and aggression, but say that they are too punch drunk and their bodies are too beat up to be relevant; That even though there are more rules, fighters also develop much more technical skill and that there are better ways to train fighters today without damaging their bodies as much. Like all things, it seems to be simply an argument of "old versus new". No, I don't agree with the black and white thinking that one has to be correct, both viewpoints are actually correct. Fighters and swordsmen of the "new" may train with a less aggressive attitude, but they can develop technical fighting ability much faster and actually be at a far higher level than their more aggressive peers are at an older age. Fighters and swordsmen of the old are correct in that the more passive approach can lead to complacency and can dull the practicality of the art. Neither are exactly incorrect.
I believe him, but i disagree with you both. He was wrong in that it's "wrong" for the swordsmanship to change, since he is not taking into account that swords can be used for other purposes but killing. In think you continued assertion that "you can't like him" if you like those schools is.... kinda odd. If the historical reasons for the schools changing are valid, as are the context for Musashi's comments, then i see no reason why one can't appreciate both. Sure , if you must follow the opinions of the sensei that dislike Miyamoto for dissing them (the schools), sure. That could be a pretty hefty cognitive dilemma, to like both. Personally, i like the schools changing, but think they (and many others) could of been more open with why, and kept some of the old traditions for older or more experienced students. I can appreciate the brutal, young Miyamoto as Martial artist, but he was kind of a huge egomanic dick until the priest beat some sense into him. After that, he is better in every way.
Katori Shinto Ryu predates Musashi by roughly a century. I don't think you can include it in the "more philosophical but less combat oriented" schools.
Here, in the modern world, I believe that they are both just a tool in the box, and it is up to the practitioner to decide what is appropriate and when. Having said that, back then, it would not have been appropriate for a person such as Musashi or one of his contemporaries to adopt such an ideal. The struggle for favor and supremacy was real, and lines had to be drawn.
Well, it's a good thing nobody in Japan knew how to use swords during the Bakumatsu, and had only trained with shinai for the last 200 years. A lot of people might have been brutally killed in intense, unarmoured, urban skirmishes between the restorationists and the shogunate if they had. But fortunately, nobody got hurt since they just tapped each other with sticks until it was determined that the Meiji forces had tapped more, and therefore were the winners. Just thought I would mention this, since Mr. Cummins conveniently left the entire Meiji restoration out of his expositions. This entire paragraph is meant to be dripping with sarcasm, by the way... And to be clear, I do respect Mr. Cummings, his research, and the bulk of his work, but I think this particular point falls on its face a bit. Feel free to share your own thought, those are just mine.
@@AntonyCummins I look forward to watching. Matter of fact, I would love to hear everything you could tell us about both the Boshin War and the Satsuma Rebellion. They are conflicts that are strangely omitted from most discussions of samurai history in favor of the far more romanticized sengoku jidai, but I find the end of the edo era particularly fascinating, and would love to learn more.
@@iamnoman85 Hello there! I know this is an old post but I just wanted to let you know that Antony doesn't receive notifications for replies to his replies so he didn't see your follow up comment. Just a heads up!
@@AntonyCummins No, he doesn't. In fact, when he is offering critiques of the schools, he makes the point that he specifically is NOT naming specific schools or techniques. His only mention of names mentions the REGIONS of Kantori and Kashima, not specific schools... and the comments are not as you are presenting here. Sami, the yawara (jujutsu) is still taught in the school. It is NOT the "Musashi Ryu" in the Takamatsu story... I don't know of any reference to a school by that name outside of the story Hatsumi related, nor is there a record of a jujutsu-centric system from Musashi in our records.
@@budomelbourne6122 Hello there! just want to give you a heads up that Antony doesn't receive notifications for replies to his replies so he didn't get a chance to see your follow up comment. Just a heads up for future reference!
Thank you. If you see this post, please let me know. It seems TH-cam has shadow banned me again. I wrote them a polite note asking to speak with their head cuck, but I guess he'd stepped out of the office to relieve himself on a San Francisco sidewalk.
I don't really see the paradox. Two swordsmen disagree on the merits of their respective styles. So why does that follow that I cannot like both? A bjj instructor and a wrestling coach may say that the other does things wrong, but I can still enjoy both styles of grappling. How is your example different?
It’s about trusting the word of a historical figure. today you could test it in the ring and you could have 100 MMA matches V BJJ. If they win equal amounts both good styles. But this can not be done in the past. It’s not about like its about ability and testing that ability. If Musashi is correct and the other swordsmen are terrible then the other swordsmenship is useless. If he is wrong then you can not trust his word.
It's Ironic that you stated this. Yagyu introduced the "Way of Swordlessness" and Musashi last and arguably Greatest duel was on Ganryu Island where he might a Sword out of an Oar, which was longer then his opponents.
I think that's only part of what musashi was saying. If you consider his premise on how to be a better strategist by learning different forms of art. my understanding of his book, his teachings, was how people were considering their way of fighting to be absolute. That they saw their teachings as Devine, and would not hear the strategies of other schools. That's what limited strategy. Hence the example of using the whole hand and not just the fingers. For example, as you brought up, the use of the long sword being the only way to victory. He argued against that idea. His argument is that you dint have to have the longest sword to win, and in fact, it would be a cause of your death depending on circumstances. Personally, as a man with street experience as well as in the ring, I see many similarities in his and bruce Lee's arguments about martial arts in general. There is alot to unload about this topic, lol, I dont think I did a good job explaining my slight disagreement with Antony's conclusion on musashi, lol
It's because most of other ryuha/koryu like Katori Shinto Ryu is more likely just dancing in their katas instead of getting to the point in quickly finishing the job. It's most likely that Musashi-sensei is referring to Kashima and Katori Shinto Ryu when he mentioned in the Wind Scroll: "There are also schools that contrive many moves with the long sword, calling the positions of the sword the formal techniques and transmitting the science as the inner teaching"." Further down, he said: Other schools become theatrical, dressing up and showing off to make a living, commercializing martial arts; therefore it would seem that they are not the true Way."
Greeting from British Columbia bud, great video. Close to thirty years ago when I lived in Japan I had just left the military. I trained at the local Budokan in Kagoshima and while I was practicing my sword drill there I might see a small group to my left practicing Okinawan Karate while the group to my right were training in drunken style Kung-Fu or some other style. But always directly across from where we trained was where young ladies practiced Kyudo or Japanese archery. So the Budokan Dojo was one large open style Dojo about the size of four basket ball courts. Always full of action. I enjoyed watching the college girls practice their kyudo and I couldn't help but notice that the form was far more important than actually hitting the target. I mentioned this to my adult students at my English Conversation Class one evening, several of whom practiced Kyudo thinking it may spark conversation. I explained I did not like the way Kyudo was taught, it seemed absolute illogical. I saw it all as being titts on a bull, as being ex-military I felt that early Samurai would have placed far more importance on the kill over the form. Of course the prevailing opinion of that class was that because I was a gaijin I could never understand. My opinion was that as none of my students were military veterans they would never understand. LoL. Could you imagine if modern infantry or armour trained like Kyudo students? "Don't worry about the target son, focus on your form. You must take a correct, beautiful stance and move- hey, stop focusing on the target lad! Just exist within the moment. ".
HELLO TO ALL NINJA AND SAMURAI ENTHUSIASTS!!! ON BEHALF OF ANTONY CUMMINS I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT HE DOESN'T RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS FOR REPLIES TO HIS REPLIES. IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE CHANNEL ANTONY WOULD LIKE YOU TO START BY WATCHING HIS 2020 DOCUMENTARY.
Tactics (strong) combat Strategy (weak) plenty of examples loosing out. 5 Rings is Solid Become an Expert (in any field) Follow the book and you will get there quickly. Life Musashi's Life I can't say it's a model life to emulate (focused on duels, living in caves etc.) Buddhists (for example) would give him a poor grade. I can't say everything he did was brilliant. Life (Humanity) We waste time and do silly things. Some of it makes life better. Sometimes socializing (in all it's forms) gets you further (common in Japan)
Okay this is simple musashi is right in fact if you are interested in real practical swordsmanship go sengoku only when people stop training in fighting arts for the sake of winning at whatever cost it instantly starts to atrophy.
Anthony, I remember watching a documentary with Otake Sensei speaking about “Swordsmen who boast of winning many duels is simply fiction.” What is your opinion on this? Do you think this was a slam on Musashi due to this tension between the schools that you mentioned? I’ve been a practicing Japanese sword arts student for nearly 17 years, with Kendo, Iaido, Kenjutsu and I find that when we spar(we use shinai but without most protective gear because we don’t mind a few bruises) is that many of the kata techniques that are not direct are discarded. It always seems to me that simple is best and most effective. It is also far easier to learn and remember. What is your opinion on this? Do you think most koryu over complicate things just for the sake of tradition? I often find myself wondering about the validity of a lot of the techniques
I simply do not know . for instance what was Musashis personal views on these family's/schools were they rivals apart from swordsmanship? what were the politics ? anyway I have never heard a man city fan saying how good man united are at football and putting it in print
@@AntonyCummins I have and that in no way suggests you can't like both, even if one is complete bullshit or not that's just silly bro. I can't like cops and superheroes? One is real one is bullshit
@@AntonyCummins I thought you asked if I ever watched the documentary. Didn't know you meant did I watch this video. Misunderstood your question bro. Anyway that comment was from your opening statement is all. Still love you bro
Same thing with Kyukoshin karate, the most "brutal" form of karate....I remember some of my team members went up against boxers and got humiliated because of the "not the face" rule in Karate...I've also experienced it with Kendo and it's part of reason why I left....tap/touch where you do not do the full motion of slashing and your Shinai actually stops at the opponents body is just not it....yes the "spirit" of fighting is preserved and can be learned but that is all and now that you mention it, it's funny that my Shinai is longer than my Katana lol
Love this vid, so many shit heads commenting on this, thoughs guys need to show antony his wrong with there actions, not there bullshit words. All his doing is opening up a box of discution, but if you feel offended, then may be some truth has hit a nurve, polish your characters not your many kata.
![[TH] Esports World Cup : Point Rush Stage](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eLU-jnYp3Zs/mqdefault.jpg)
So.... you managed to do a 17+ minute long video with exactly nothing correct... that's a bit of a feat....
Hang on there. Mind backing that up? Or is Mister Cummins just having a giggle with you?
what?
Lol im sure you won't explain why that is.
@@abc4781 et al... sorry guys, forgot I used this account to reply, and only got the notification of today's response... honestly, it takes far too long to cover all the issues with Antony's video here... I did it when it first came up on a facebook group just after it was posted, though... it took 45 individual replies to get it mostly covered. You can read it (as well as rebuttal, if you're interested) here: facebook.com/groups/212076278963321/permalink/1448441891993414/
It's a public group, so shouldn't be any problem with accessing and reading it. But, in case you don't (it's a long thread, after all), I am the Australian representative for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, and a member of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu... and yeah, Antony gets pretty much every single thing wrong... as well as in his take on Shinkage Ryu... and, you know, pretty much everything he touches.
Musashi is clearly THE One doing it right.. IF you want to Survive in a real fight you choose Musashis teachings
It took 20 seconds into your presentation to determine to that Musashi was to believed. Warfare doesn’t care about traditions or proper stances or any of that garbage. He was a skilled fighter and ruthless killer. Nothing more,nothing less.
Good point. Something else interesting happened at the beginning of the Edo period that supports this.
During the Sengoku period, Samurai would learn and practice any art/style that they found to be practical and useful on the battlefield. But at the beginning of the Edo period, studying any art that was not of Japanese origin was outlawed. They wanted to preserve their history and culture and not have it tainted with foreign styles. It took until the early 1900s for even Okinawan arts like karate to even be allowed back in.
The point being, as you said, the Sengoku Samurai didn't care about art, tradition, perfection in form, etc. Those are new things that became popular in the Edo period.
This parallels a lot with the Filipino martial arts. I realized that this may be very controversial for certain people, especially foreigners who've learned it. But it's kind of the "secret". There were no patterns before in the old days. The movements were very simple and it could be learned in a relatively short time. But in order to keep students, gain more students, and have a longer flow of income (and then other cases the "wow" factor behind it aka prestige) more was added until eventually became how Filipino martial arts are today.
Good info. Thank you.
Being an Arnis/Filipino Martial Arts practicioner myself, that is quite true.
I practice under the Cinco Teros style of Arnis and my Maestro (who is currently an instructor at the Philippine Military Academy) made it clear that the traditional techniques, what others call the "combative aspect" of Arnis, is relatively simple and direct.
Whereas the latter "sports" based stuff they do in modern tournaments is a lot more complex, they require much dexterity and agility to learn/ master.
They used to hack each other. That is why if you happen to scan your Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, there is a felony called Dueling. You don't see these kinds of cases anymore in today's jurisprudence. But back then, it was visceral.🤣
As an FMA practitioner who learned traditional way, I find this to be true. My Arnis de Mano master didn't like overly complicated movements, he was taught by his grandfather that learning forms and complicated movements is fine because it builds attribute but when you duel or fight, the simpler moves are much better. Nowadays, we see instructors teach complicated movements and fail to explain why the students need to learn it.
I mentioned in another comment how the same thing can be seen in karate and other hand-to-hand systems. Curriculum bloat is a real problem.
Fun fact... In 1600, half the guns in the world were in Japan. As well as a third of the world's silver being mined.
Yep correct. They loved guns!
Makes you wonder why they never used those guns or sliver to form a great empire, but yet again they did try in Korea.
@@Historyfan476AD
Especially considering that... I think Tokugawa's grandson, put down the order to use less silver in the coins, as it was putting a hurt on them economically... Which then pulled them out of it. Leaving me to wonder that in a nation of isolation, where would those coins be going that they're depleting the silver reserves hard enough to negatively affect their economy?
@@AnthonySforza I think it might be a lack of a proper navy big enough to fight the Chinese fleet, or maybe after Korea and its failure the Japanese leadership thought that fighting china and it's sphere of influence was to risky for there small island.
Money alone cannot always buy your the numbers you need nor the experience of naval warfare on a large scale.
@@Historyfan476AD
Well no... Or maybe. My point was more so about how if coins are being minted with (I think) 92% silver and dropping them down to (Again, I think) 80% silver, in a country that's supposed to be locked up, with nobody in or out... Where are those coins going? As being in a locked up country (Tokugawa's grandson, so late late 1600s, maybe super early 1700s), wouldn't they just be circulating around Japan's economy? So why would continuing to make them with 92% silver, begin to make them bankrupt? So I'm left to wonder, where such coins were going, if not into the Japanese economy?
“Roger that Darling” *Tap *tap 😂
I think the issue with Miyamato Musashi on a whole is that we don't have a concept of the context he lived under. Not only that, we also need to cut through a lot of the issues around translation, potentially lost sources, lost traditions.
I think these comments are fair and hard to argue.
Swordsmanship traditions, schools in the lifetime of Musashi were changing and changing dramatically.
The change from a state being at war to a formal peace, allowed more formal, formalised schools to develop.
Specifically schools that wouldn't survive the battlefields of earlier periods, were able to develop.
I think he's got a solid argument, foundation. He's stating that, at least in the scope of my translation, that one should be careful of the new schools, the newer schools are to be questioned and perhaps less valued. Less valued specifically for the battlefield. He taught and advocated a more practical form of swordsmanship, if you're opponent does something and relies too much on a single trick, type of trick, technique, don't listen to them.
I believe that Musashi would advocate a more rounded, more practical, form of swordsmanship. For Musashi I would argue that the point of training is to be ready for battle, for a battle to the death. Don't piss around, don't make it too formal, don't put rules in front of battle. To survive battle you should be ready for battle, not a bout in the training yard. Don't go into battle expecting that it is going to be like the dojo, training yard.
It's on some level why I prefer Talhoffer over Leichtenaurer on the HEMA side. Leichtenaurer is going on about these master strokes and tricks that your opponent could never know, have no counter for. Talhoffer is quite the opposite. Here, do you want to live after the duel? Do this, it works, it's blunt, brutal and ugly, but you're going to be alive and your opponent is dead. That's the best outcome for you.
So I think it's easy to see and say Musashi is against the rise of the formal schools of swordsmanship. I think he is.
I also think the text, Book of Five Rings, comes from a period where he was still, if you'll pardon the expression, chilling out. There's a bit of the old crustiness in some of the tone, choice of words. I think he would tell you, if you're wanting to dance, go and dance. Don't take those lessons to the sword and battle. There he's not wrong. At least, not wrong to me.
However, he might be the wrong voice, wrong lesson for the time he was writing.
There Be Game Very comprehensive, yet to the point. Thank you.
@@mykaratejournal2120 Glad I said it in a way you got.
This stuff is pretty complex and it's something that can easily be buried in explanation, translation, explanations of context.
Hi Antony! Just subscribed! From what I've been able to learn about Musashi, it seemed he was a very rough, brash character, at least when he was in his prime, fighting the wars in the Sengoku period. His way with the sword was to cut his opponent down so that they never get back up to threaten you again. In the Warring States era, swordplay was less aesthetically pleasing, but had more to do with making sure your opponent stays down. To win a battle or war, the opponents must be cut down in order to claim victory. Musashi and his style has more to do with effectiveness rather than beauty. It doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to work. Similar to Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do, and incorporating the most effective ways to floor your opponent, while removing the less practical maneuvers, it seemed Musashi's way with the sword was to end the threat as quickly and effectively as possible. You do not need to look pretty in a battle, so long as you are the only one standing after it is over.
Musashi is doing it right, there is no question about that. Swordsmanship is the art of killing people in real combat .
Or beating their skull in with a wooden oar .
in HEMA we have something similar in the Holy German Empire throught 1400 -> 1500 where swordmanship is appropriated by the middle class (bourgeois). They produced fencing treaties based on a grand master teachings (Johannes Liechtenauer : there is no evidences for is existence though, and his teachnig is none descriptive (we only understand it from his commentators)). A manuscrit however (MS 3227a) warn the reader to be aware that the fencing they can see nowaday is "appalling to watch" and give his version of how the grand master fencing "was" (less convoluted guards, the sword is thrown right at the head without regards for the opponent weapon,...).
But each style is pertinent in is right context. When we try the "real" one for play (much like capoeira) it don't work well, and when we try the "gentleman" one with free blows (combat simulation) it doesn't shine either.
Morality ? Don't use a hammer to drive screws : you can make it work but, anybody can tell you're doing something wrong !
It was the The Holy Roman Empire and Germanics alone were heirs to the imperial throne.
It is kinda funny though, because the whole idea of a really long shinai is pretty much the same thinking that made people use spears.
I appreciate your efforts toward historical truth. It's refreshing. Well done!
Miyamoto to Me is the ultimate warrior!! He fought in all ways of combat!! Bar none!!!
Im with musashi...i imagine the skills learned in the brutality of warfare turning into a monty python sketch x
Consider Price's Law (look it up before reading the rest). Also, from my personal experience, highly HIGHLY skilled people often think 1.) they have the answer/s to how they have succeeded 2.) that they can teach/pass along their knowledge/techniques. This often fails. Think about it...e.g. a "student of" (Bruce Lee, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Michael Jordan, Einstein, Hendrix, Mozart, Joe McMoneagle, Marlon Brando, whoever) often falls short of reaching their teacher's level. My hypothesis is this: Musashi may have been one of those badass motherfuckers that, for the same mysterious reasons surrounding rare human potentials, was just that - a badass motherfucker. Sure, you may learn something (but possibly learn something more effective for you from somewhere else), but you may never be Musashi.
So, don't get discouraged from pursuing a level beyond mastery, but have the understanding you may never get there.
@Rick Koontz Great.
History is the best teacher. The martial arts I am familiar with have gone through a period of transition to include sport/competition. How you train is how you fight so I agree with Mushashi's analysis. There was a turn back to some realism with the advent of Toyama Ryu where the combative side of Iaido was designed for military use, to train Japanese officers. For example, they do everything standing up so there is no sitting down kata. Toyama Ryu is a modern incarnation of old ways but it makes the point that when training for war, there are no sports or competition involved. I believe that was Mushashi's main point.
Because of the way of making money, strategy has sicken!! -Miyamoto
I disagree that one could like or agree with only one or the other school of thought. Sword play or broadly any martial art has both physical and psychological aspects. Both equally important. It seems the swordsmen of pre-Musashi time had a larger focus on self-preservation while the ones that came later focused more on self-perfection instead. From what was essentially the same art, they picked what was more relevant to them and I believe that is why Musashi also wrote "There are more than one path to the top of the mountain." What matters is not the path one chooses but how much conviction one walks it with (If you train a fighting art for self-preservation long enough, you will find the spiritual you and if you diligently train the art for self-perfection, you will find the warrior you somewhere on the way.)
Everybody did it “right” according to their own goals. Musashi held the intent to kill. Next generations wanted to dance with sword play. The only mistake would be to think that they were as skilled/useful as samurai past.
"The principle is
'strategy by means of the long sword'", I don't think that GoRinosho is just about swordmanship.
Miyamoto kept swordsmanship simple and effective!!! 5 guards , 5 cuts and 5 blocks...
You can see that the same thing happens in European swordsmanship. The same thing also happened to jujutsu and karate. Just at different times.
Essentially, when war was no longer a part of everyday life, they began practicing for things that they could still do such as art and spirituality.
Marketing also had a lot to do with it. If you were a well trained swordsman living at the beginning of the Edo period, you would have a hard time selling "I can teach you to be a brutal killer." People didn't need that anymore. At least not to the same degree. But people always like feeling superior to their peers, so sport fencing became popular. Just like how jousting and fencing in Europe did. It became a game. Just how in the late 1800s, judo became the art to study for fitness, sport, and such. Later followed by karate in the early 1900s.
I would almost go as far as to make the bold statement that this happened to every fighting art.
So, if you are interested in how the Samurai actually fought in the Sengoku era, then Musashi is more correct. If you are interested in the historical preservation of samurai culture, again, Musashi is correct.
But his books don't really go into specifics. He talks more about broad concepts and principles. And these are important. But if we want to get a more accurate picture, we need to find treatises written during the Sengoku period, not after.
Musashi was not a Sengoku samurai. He was born around the pre Edo period. He become active as a master swordsman almost before Tokugawa Ieyasu retired as Shogun
Within the historical context, the Yagyu were literally the Tokugawa shogunate's secret police serving the Shogun directly from their capital in Edo. Their new style was designed for police work in the new shogunate's new age of peace. Musashi instead lived his life after Sekigahara wandering around then serving as adjunct militant for a daimyo who kept his personal army and still served in a military role. Unlike the Yagyu, he was still fighting on battlefields when he wrote his book, and his battlefields were more limited because of the Tokugawa firearms control laws. When the bumpkin daimyo quarreled with arms in the Tokugawa era, they had to resort to older weapons because the use of firearms and cannons would have attracted intervention from the shogunate, so the old style of swordsmanship still had some life within that environment. This was what Musashi experienced as opposed to the Yagyu. Musashi was of course correct within the context of what he was saying and the context of his own life while the Yagyu were of course equally correct within the context of what they were doing. In the long run, the Yagyu way was proven better because it kept swordmanship relevant as an art and a tool for public order long after regional combat in the old style had disappeared.
Ignoring all of the duels and legends surrounding him, he was still a veteran of numerous battles in which he took part in a close and intimate manner. Any professional of any trade can look at someones technique and know what results can be expected. An experienced eye can see through bravado and subversion.
The way to learn is to pick up a katana and learn for yourself. Books help, but nothing beats hands on training....
That is a good point but i am not sure what it has to do with the topic of this video? But i agree.
@@AntonyCummins yeah, lol. That was a bit of a premature comment. Just now finishing video. I very much liked the points at the end about the brutality of a sword fight. All that kendo training goes out the window in a real sword fight.
@@AntonyCummins Reminds me of a part from the book snowcrash by Neil Stephenson. Check out this excerpt. Exactly what you were talking about at the end of the video....th-cam.com/video/cvyOwvMgiS4/w-d-xo.html
Will look it up soon mate. Just washing up!
@@AntonyCummins Cool.
--
The art of war (samurai ) at certain times did become tame and the practice became a fashion and sporting culture that favored sparring and 'jousting' and of course the wealthy took up the profile and wardobe. The younger Musashi was not a gentleman and came from a more practical and applied discipline that was no sporting event or clinic.
exactly! ty
awesome video
musashi was right,, no one has learned his fighting style, it died with him.
That’s dope af tho
Wow, really? Remind me to explain that to Kajiya soke, 12th head of his school, that neither he, nor the previous 10 generations actually learnt Musashi's school... or do you want to retract that ill-informed statement?
@@machtheknife2751 Musashi wrote it himself 🔥, please read the author of what you are talking about. 😁
@@DANTHETUBEMAN son, I train in the school. Musashi very specifically passed it on to Terao Kyumanosuke, who suggested that Musashi's adopted son Iori should take the reins... he refused, honouring Musashi's choice of Terao. The school has continued since. Musashi also left his bokuto, inscribed with a direction to continue the school "without adaptation", giving it the name Jisso Enman no Bokuto.
Musashi passed on his school to continue it. He did this with his earlier Enmei Ryu, and with Niten Ichi Ryu. The Gorin no Sho is a document of transferal of the school as a form of Menkyo. You, simply, have no idea what you're talking about.
Where do you think Musashi wrote that he was not passing his school (fighting style) on?
@@machtheknife2751 you should have read it by now, you are even worse you studied it and don't know what your talking about proving musashi right no one understands his method
To find out what works, you have to spar full-speed. Use protection and adapted weapons even if you dont do it every training class. Thats what I am gonna do when I start teaching. You have to go for the cut and keep it as realistic as you can. Most likely I am gonna discard a lot of stuff over the years.
The reason most of the sword fighting today doesn't seem right as maybe how Musashi observed is because most of who are practicing swords during the peaceful time are not as bold and determined as the swordsmen of his time where in order for you to find an opening to strike an opponent you need to get in and set up a trap, yes it's risky but it's always the better man who wins. That's the mind-set Samurai had back then during his time. It's the true embodiment of Bushido. We notice in modern days even in Hema they seem to have high regard in being safe than determined to finish off their opponent (of course it's illegal). I think that's the absence of the entire element why sparring nowadays doesn't look right. It's all footwork, running, avoiding getting inside the opponent's attack zone etc. During the height of the Musha Shugyo in Japan once a duel commenced, first thing the two swordsmen establish is the Ma-ai or being inside of each other's kill zone it's like being inside a cage they can't go out anymore. If one goes out the Ma-ai retracted away or backwards, the other man will not pursue him until he gets back to reset the Ma-ai. No dancing, no cha-cha. Only one decisive strike and that's all it's needed
@@smoothcriminal7232 Great comment dude
Thank you for the video
I honestly feel you can appreciate both for different reasons. One can study something to better the self, or one can study something for objectives outside the self. In this case that something being sword work for peace (a reflection of inner peace) or killing (a reality of surviving/winning battles)
This is very interesting. This historical view of martial arts is fascinating. Thank you, Mr. Cummins.
I Read THE Five rings for THE second time yesterday, with Swedish translation..An author by THE name Stefan Stenudd translated it to Swedish.. he also translated tao te ching
I think Musashi meant that it is not a good idea to learn one particular fighting style only . If you want to live to an old age that is . I think a lot gets lost in translation as well .
The big secret in marital arts is the length of time between people killing each other and how effective the art is. You only have to look at boxing to see the change that happens between bare knuckle and gloves. I got told off in Aikido because they do this move a lot with the open hands which is supposed to make peoples head move, and I did fingers strikes which did make people move there head.
"get a gripe" Awesome!
It sounds to me like its more to do with personal preference. Do you wish to kill your opponent or just wound him.
That is a good way to think of it actually. Apart from the long sword touch combat. But yes, good point.
Better to capture a daimyo and sell him for ransom than to kill him, there is also respect and honour in sparing your opponent, a life debt is sometimes worth it.
All that personal preference goes out of the window if your opponent has only one preference but to kill you on the spot, or in any given occasion.
I recently discovered your channel Anthony and the topics are quiet interesting. Now, I am very very new to swordsmanship ( I recently started studying the Edo line of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu) but I gotta tell you there is nothing I have seen during practice that is “soft” or “don’t injure your enemy” kind of technique. On the contrary, we go for the kill. But like I said I am a total beginner so I won’t give an opinion just that remark. I enjoy watching your channel and I will keep trying to learn more on the subject 👍
Very interesting sir. Thank you
If you read his book he suggests learning all other schools. He said aspects of them were no good. He then says to look into it for yourself. And If you were able to beat every school in your country and time period wouldn't you wonder if you were really good, or if everyone else just sucks. That gets discussed at the beginning of the book as well, a sentiment he shares. Have you read his book? You can like Musashi and the others too. Not contradictive if your studying them equally. They are ancient history bro, and all have valuable things to teach us, but it is up to ourselves to determine what is practical today.
I like his five rings and use to train this way.
Like the shoalin temple of today more about performance than fighting!! Though there are a few shoalin monks that are lethal!! I was there! In 2005 !! I miss it!!
Musashi all the way, he was a Buddhist but when fighting it's kill or be killed. He didn't try to justify killing through Buddhist teachings as to do so would be absurd, he was honest and said Buddhism is Buddhism art is art and war is war etc. I appreciate the self improvement aspect of all martial arts and believe in it whole heartedly, however that's because I can, I live in a relatively peaceful society. In a war like society, fancy moves are out and effective killing is in, this is exactly what happened in Japan. Just my opinion. Effective training with a weapon, if your training for more than fitness or spiritual self improvement must in my opinion, have one eye on the weapons original purpose.
Just watched. Very much correct. 👍👍
I think we ought to be somewhat careful regarding Musashi and his deeds, due to the dearth of primary sources. The only 1st hand accounts seem to be from the man himself, (and extremely scanty,) whereas the earliest secondary accounts appear about nine years after his death, none of which agree with each other, apparently. For example, if we take his negative opinions regarding long-swords on one hand, it doesn't match with his (supposed) reliance on oversized bokken to win duels on the other. I don't know if we can draw any firm conclusions.
Musashi is right, because if one knows how to use a sword deferentially with a left or right hand,, that would means that it can use one sword in each hand, that will not contradict the left of right side technics that you commented and also doble the power and the variety of more effective technics
I believe him!! I have every book in English of Miyamoto!!
Which begs the question, why would anyone aspire to this. Self-defence I can understand. Just killing for the sake of killing, and ego?
So did you say or out of context (who to follow) did you mention to follow Musashi or the schools of the time? Like older school street fighting or schools refining the practices? Which they did. Like what is considered sportsmanship today too.
I was looking for dokkōdō, it found this. I’m not mad
Although I haven't heard the fruit and the flower specifically with shotokan, it sounds like what the grandmaster sensei would talk about... interesting with the evolution of the shinai and stuff...
yagyu were more diplomatic and suffisticated but behind that facade just as deadly if needed. also sword that kills sword that not kills refers mostly to killing to protect other peoples live. as for cutting hands,arms in stead of heads. hands,arms closest to sword so easy to cut. always cut what is in easy reach. if cut of hands, fingers like thumb person can not fight so good. as musashi yes he was good his style is more simple but contains many techniques also to be found in other styles.
Belief is not in the question,
If you haven't already, will you please explain the difference (if there is a difference) between odashi and nodashi? Are they two words for the same sword, or are they two different swords for different purposes?
And separately, it's to my understanding that Musashi was not a samurai (or was not recognized as a samurai) because he didn't follow samurai protocol. Although, he was surely a sword master (Sword Saint).
Thank you, Antony, for your work. You are appreciated.
Normally large tachi swords are divided into battlefield combat ones and ones for ceremony, like a dress sword and a combat sword. But i would need to check the kanji on those two. Even Ronin are samurai. In that time you were born a samurai and he was one. As i say even teh lowest samurai are still samurai. SOme people even debate that ashigaru are samurai.
What he means, is that he doesn't use other people's words directly. The book is in his own words. Of course philosophy was present, he wasn't saying it wasn't. He was just stating things practically from his own perspective, as true as he could, but states in the book that everyone is responsible for carving their own path, regardless of philisophical influences.
We, all realise that it's changed, but, we don't know what existed before! The knowledge is I won't say lost, but, it's very well hidden. Some are unfortunately modern inventions but there is still some historical context in there, and most of us only have experience in one style. Like you were showing there are 2 different ways to stop the blow and counter, but, which is right. That would need careful study and a group of people willing to train hard to see which is effective - that means getting in the Samurai armour and taking hits from blunt blades (I once took a hit in the teeth from a bokken - not fun) and that's just one movement from two different schools. The group would need to analyze all the schools to see that one's that would've worked, that means using Wakizashi, dual wielding, kogatana, tanto. It's like modern martial arts we all know moves that look cool in our respective styles that we would use in a demonstration and ones that work in real life with a little modification. It's that little modification we must keep in mind.
Musashi, no question.
Amen Brother!!!😊🐲🙏🗡
first up: congrats for the great work, you deliver it like the younger mike loads for samurai. to the topic who's right: The fewer rules and restrictions a martial art has and the simpler it is, the more effective it is. Also: The right mindset is extreme important. If you have one ruleless, determined man with basics, he wins against a advanced guy of the fanccy 96 stances, who never learned to "get in and to the job". Best today example: The chinese hobby MMA guy who continues to beat up kung fu masters and get screwed from the chinese government for it.
Not dissimilar to what happens in Europe when real military swordsmanship & smallsword fencing become sport fencing.
@@tatumergo3931 agreed
Their is no wrong or right way, it's whatever way that keeps you alive that counts. 😁
I.e. a way that is better at keeping you alive is the right way :D
i say sword fighting not an sport it for killing Miyamoto Musashi is right
The problem with anything like this none of us mortals were there. Musashi I do believe was not a liar and some of his more well known duels did actually happen and others were written about this back then. Also musashi was a opportunist and was very resourceful and his early duels were kinda dirty tricks done by musashi but in a real fight as musashi knew early in his life there are no rules or etiquette in battle. So schools hated musashi and many practitioners today think he was a honourless vagabond and not a true samurai but later in life he definitely reflected and became a very modest and wise soul. But today if a nine year old beats a guy to death they wouldn't be called a Sword Saint!
Bro if there upset f them l luved da article. First time seeing u it was great .thanx. from Puertorico. Adios.
Which samurai said: if i dont kill when i dont need to, the hand might hesitate when i need to kill. I've have heard this fraze many time in books and by people reading history books, but i cant remember who it was in the book.
Anthony can you help me?
Sorry i can not remember
Hi, Ant, it's ol' Nick, back on my b.s., haha.
I can't speak on koryu, but I can speak on kakutogi, since this same kind of thing is often echoed in modern ring martial arts. You have older fighters from the no holds barred, "Vale Tudo" days that complain about fighters today diluting mixed martial arts, that they aren't doing it right, etc. Even the Gracies say the same about Brazilian jiujitsu today, that grapplers of today focus too much on the sport and develop dumb habits like butt scooting, guard pulling, and techniques that can get them stomped in both mixed martial arts and in a street fight.
On the other hand, you have fighters and grapplers today that offer begrudging respect to the fighters of old for their toughness and aggression, but say that they are too punch drunk and their bodies are too beat up to be relevant; That even though there are more rules, fighters also develop much more technical skill and that there are better ways to train fighters today without damaging their bodies as much.
Like all things, it seems to be simply an argument of "old versus new". No, I don't agree with the black and white thinking that one has to be correct, both viewpoints are actually correct. Fighters and swordsmen of the "new" may train with a less aggressive attitude, but they can develop technical fighting ability much faster and actually be at a far higher level than their more aggressive peers are at an older age. Fighters and swordsmen of the old are correct in that the more passive approach can lead to complacency and can dull the practicality of the art. Neither are exactly incorrect.
I believe him, but i disagree with you both. He was wrong in that it's "wrong" for the swordsmanship to change, since he is not taking into account that swords can be used for other purposes but killing.
In think you continued assertion that "you can't like him" if you like those schools is.... kinda odd. If the historical reasons for the schools changing are valid, as are the context for Musashi's comments, then i see no reason why one can't appreciate both. Sure , if you must follow the opinions of the sensei that dislike Miyamoto for dissing them (the schools), sure. That could be a pretty hefty cognitive dilemma, to like both.
Personally, i like the schools changing, but think they (and many others) could of been more open with why, and kept some of the old traditions for older or more experienced students. I can appreciate the brutal, young Miyamoto as Martial artist, but he was kind of a huge egomanic dick until the priest beat some sense into him. After that, he is better in every way.
Azmodeus87 Haha... Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Brutally honest. ✌🏼️👊🏼😬
Hello greetings
Katori Shinto Ryu predates Musashi by roughly a century. I don't think you can include it in the "more philosophical but less combat oriented" schools.
Can i fight you Antony?
Only for the last scone. Then it will; be a fight hahah.
Here, in the modern world, I believe that they are both just a tool in the box, and it is up to the practitioner to decide what is appropriate and when. Having said that, back then, it would not have been appropriate for a person such as Musashi or one of his contemporaries to adopt such an ideal. The struggle for favor and supremacy was real, and lines had to be drawn.
any real warrior or master of any path will know what he says in his book to be true.
Bloody gen Y’s wrecking murderous swordplay
Well, it's a good thing nobody in Japan knew how to use swords during the Bakumatsu, and had only trained with shinai for the last 200 years. A lot of people might have been brutally killed in intense, unarmoured, urban skirmishes between the restorationists and the shogunate if they had. But fortunately, nobody got hurt since they just tapped each other with sticks until it was determined that the Meiji forces had tapped more, and therefore were the winners. Just thought I would mention this, since Mr. Cummins conveniently left the entire Meiji restoration out of his expositions. This entire paragraph is meant to be dripping with sarcasm, by the way... And to be clear, I do respect Mr. Cummings, his research, and the bulk of his work, but I think this particular point falls on its face a bit. Feel free to share your own thought, those are just mine.
I will make a video on this. This is a misconception
@@AntonyCummins I look forward to watching. Matter of fact, I would love to hear everything you could tell us about both the Boshin War and the Satsuma Rebellion. They are conflicts that are strangely omitted from most discussions of samurai history in favor of the far more romanticized sengoku jidai, but I find the end of the edo era particularly fascinating, and would love to learn more.
@@iamnoman85 Hello there! I know this is an old post but I just wanted to let you know that Antony doesn't receive notifications for replies to his replies so he didn't see your follow up comment. Just a heads up!
very interesting Ant. Did he criticize the school, form or training? have you ever wondered what happened to jujutsu from Musashi´s school? ;)
He names teh school directly. Both of them.
@@AntonyCummins No, he doesn't. In fact, when he is offering critiques of the schools, he makes the point that he specifically is NOT naming specific schools or techniques. His only mention of names mentions the REGIONS of Kantori and Kashima, not specific schools... and the comments are not as you are presenting here.
Sami, the yawara (jujutsu) is still taught in the school. It is NOT the "Musashi Ryu" in the Takamatsu story... I don't know of any reference to a school by that name outside of the story Hatsumi related, nor is there a record of a jujutsu-centric system from Musashi in our records.
@@budomelbourne6122 Hello there! just want to give you a heads up that Antony doesn't receive notifications for replies to his replies so he didn't get a chance to see your follow up comment. Just a heads up for future reference!
@@GHOSTofYOSHIMITSU Antony's an idiot with no clue what he's talking about, so if he doesn't see responses, it's hardly a loss...
This reminds me of modern debate over jutsu vs do martial arts. Although jutsu probably wouldn't meet Musashi approval either.
Jutsu was the term used before Meiji restoration and Do was used after the restoration
Thank you. If you see this post, please let me know. It seems TH-cam has shadow banned me again. I wrote them a polite note asking to speak with their head cuck, but I guess he'd stepped out of the office to relieve himself on a San Francisco sidewalk.
Wasn't Yagyu Sekihusai very old school, I mean he studied under the founder of shinkage ryu Kamiizumi Ise-no-kami Hidetsuna
I don't really see the paradox. Two swordsmen disagree on the merits of their respective styles. So why does that follow that I cannot like both? A bjj instructor and a wrestling coach may say that the other does things wrong, but I can still enjoy both styles of grappling. How is your example different?
It’s about trusting the word of a historical figure. today you could test it in the ring and you could have 100 MMA matches V BJJ. If they win equal amounts both good styles. But this can not be done in the past. It’s not about like its about ability and testing that ability. If Musashi is correct and the other swordsmen are terrible then the other swordsmenship is useless. If he is wrong then you can not trust his word.
It's Ironic that you stated this. Yagyu introduced the "Way of Swordlessness" and Musashi last and arguably Greatest duel was on Ganryu Island where he might a Sword out of an Oar, which was longer then his opponents.
Musashi is doing right
You should do a book like what you did with THE ART OF WAR on "THE BOOK OF THE FIVE RINGS."
It’s in the idea pile
I think that's only part of what musashi was saying. If you consider his premise on how to be a better strategist by learning different forms of art. my understanding of his book, his teachings, was how people were considering their way of fighting to be absolute. That they saw their teachings as Devine, and would not hear the strategies of other schools. That's what limited strategy. Hence the example of using the whole hand and not just the fingers. For example, as you brought up, the use of the long sword being the only way to victory. He argued against that idea. His argument is that you dint have to have the longest sword to win, and in fact, it would be a cause of your death depending on circumstances. Personally, as a man with street experience as well as in the ring, I see many similarities in his and bruce Lee's arguments about martial arts in general. There is alot to unload about this topic, lol, I dont think I did a good job explaining my slight disagreement with Antony's conclusion on musashi, lol
freaken redundant
It's because most of other ryuha/koryu like Katori Shinto Ryu is more likely just dancing in their katas instead of getting to the point in quickly finishing the job. It's most likely that Musashi-sensei is referring to Kashima and Katori Shinto Ryu when he mentioned in the Wind Scroll: "There are also schools that contrive many moves with the long sword, calling the positions of the sword the formal techniques and transmitting the science as the inner teaching"." Further down, he said: Other schools become theatrical, dressing up and showing off to make a living, commercializing martial arts; therefore it would seem that they are not the true Way."
Greeting from British Columbia bud, great video. Close to thirty years ago when I lived in Japan I had just left the military. I trained at the local Budokan in Kagoshima and while I was practicing my sword drill there I might see a small group to my left practicing Okinawan Karate while the group to my right were training in drunken style Kung-Fu or some other style. But always directly across from where we trained was where young ladies practiced Kyudo or Japanese archery. So the Budokan Dojo was one large open style Dojo about the size of four basket ball courts. Always full of action. I enjoyed watching the college girls practice their kyudo and I couldn't help but notice that the form was far more important than actually hitting the target. I mentioned this to my adult students at my English Conversation Class one evening, several of whom practiced Kyudo thinking it may spark conversation. I explained I did not like the way Kyudo was taught, it seemed absolute illogical. I saw it all as being titts on a bull, as being ex-military I felt that early Samurai would have placed far more importance on the kill over the form. Of course the prevailing opinion of that class was that because I was a gaijin I could never understand. My opinion was that as none of my students were military veterans they would never understand. LoL. Could you imagine if modern infantry or armour trained like Kyudo students? "Don't worry about the target son, focus on your form. You must take a correct, beautiful stance and move- hey, stop focusing on the target lad! Just exist within the moment. ".
HELLO TO ALL NINJA AND SAMURAI ENTHUSIASTS!!! ON BEHALF OF ANTONY CUMMINS I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT HE DOESN'T RECEIVE NOTIFICATIONS FOR REPLIES TO HIS REPLIES. IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE CHANNEL ANTONY WOULD LIKE YOU TO START BY WATCHING HIS 2020 DOCUMENTARY.
Tactics (strong) combat
Strategy (weak) plenty of examples loosing out.
5 Rings is Solid
Become an Expert (in any field)
Follow the book and you will get there quickly.
Life
Musashi's Life
I can't say it's a model life to emulate (focused on duels, living in caves etc.)
Buddhists (for example) would give him a poor grade.
I can't say everything he did was brilliant.
Life (Humanity)
We waste time and do silly things.
Some of it makes life better.
Sometimes socializing (in all it's forms) gets you further (common in Japan)
Thank you! finally someone explains the ridiculous fake-fu with proofs and experience!
@D'lish Donut my mistake, I was referring to the experiences of the soldiers in second world war he was talking about.
Okay this is simple musashi is right in fact if you are interested in real practical swordsmanship go sengoku only when people stop training in fighting arts for the sake of winning at whatever cost it instantly starts to atrophy.
Anthony, I remember watching a documentary with Otake Sensei speaking about “Swordsmen who boast of winning many duels is simply fiction.” What is your opinion on this? Do you think this was a slam on Musashi due to this tension between the schools that you mentioned?
I’ve been a practicing Japanese sword arts student for nearly 17 years, with Kendo, Iaido, Kenjutsu and I find that when we spar(we use shinai but without most protective gear because we don’t mind a few bruises) is that many of the kata techniques that are not direct are discarded. It always seems to me that simple is best and most effective. It is also far easier to learn and remember.
What is your opinion on this? Do you think most koryu over complicate things just for the sake of tradition? I often find myself wondering about the validity of a lot of the techniques
I simply do not know . for instance what was Musashis personal views on these family's/schools were they rivals apart from swordsmanship? what were the politics ? anyway I have never heard a man city fan saying how good man united are at football and putting it in print
Musashi is right. KYSK Ryu principles are off - a combat system not for use in combat...
Wait what? Just because you like one doesn't mean you can't like the other. What sillyness is this
You have clearly not actually watched the video
@@AntonyCummins I have and that in no way suggests you can't like both, even if one is complete bullshit or not that's just silly bro. I can't like cops and superheroes? One is real one is bullshit
You did not because its a 20 min video and you commented before it was up 5 mins. Also you have totally misunderstood the idea in this video.
@@AntonyCummins I love your videos and your books I buy your crap so just be happy man. We love you bro relax
@@AntonyCummins I thought you asked if I ever watched the documentary. Didn't know you meant did I watch this video. Misunderstood your question bro. Anyway that comment was from your opening statement is all. Still love you bro
I think he is epic but not a little overrated but think all sword man ship but few styles is that way
YUJIRO HANMA was a equal to Miyamoto Musashi
Tap and touch😂.. so ridicolous
Good vid, now go wash you hands... PSA
Nut and the flower!!!Do you now what you talk about???
Same thing with Kyukoshin karate, the most "brutal" form of karate....I remember some of my team members went up against boxers and got humiliated because of the "not the face" rule in Karate...I've also experienced it with Kendo and it's part of reason why I left....tap/touch where you do not do the full motion of slashing and your Shinai actually stops at the opponents body is just not it....yes the "spirit" of fighting is preserved and can be learned but that is all and now that you mention it, it's funny that my Shinai is longer than my Katana lol
Love this vid, so many shit heads commenting on this, thoughs guys need to show antony his wrong with there actions, not there bullshit words. All his doing is opening up a box of discution, but if you feel offended, then may be some truth has hit a nurve, polish your characters not your many kata.
I emailed you back