Define EFFECTIVE!

[bushido_man96]

I knew that when I started this thread that there would be some difference from one style to another and from one practitioner to another. Whether one would agree with your definition or not wasn't important to this thread. No. What was important to this thread was to know what "YOUR" definition of EFFECTIVE was, and that alone.

Effective means I go home alive and well.

Absolutely!

I guess it doesn't get much simpler than that. Or shall I say, efficient?...

[sojobo]

Yeah, Iai is pretty specialized, if I remember right, basically focused on a draw and single cut with the sword? Or something to that effect. But, I still think the principles and mechanics can effect how well you could club someone if you needed to, hehe...

As with many things, there is “Iai” and there is “Iai”.

As my instructor would explain, "Iai" more literally means to adapt to ones environment - and I think that is the more important lesson that is being learnt from its practice - in terms of a modern day application.

In many of the Medieval European styles I've read up on, many of the techniques with the weapons correlate to each other. Many quarterstaff movements corespond to the movements and strikes of a sword, and transmit to other weapons as well. Its what made the systems so effective. Not all of them were exactly the same, but most of the concepts and mechanics transfered.

Yes, it was important that the base principles and stratagems remained constant and transmitted across all disciplines. Failure to do so would be pretty terminal.

In Japanese Bujutsu, such martial teachings are referred to as "Sogo Bujutsu" or comprehensive fighting systems.

The reason of course why hoplologists like Draeger latched on to Japanese Bujutsu (as opposed to the theory or writings behind medieval European fighting systems), is due to the fact that they are still extant and practiced / communicated in exactly the same way there were 400+ years ago. It is more of a primary source in this respect.

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

The reason of course why hoplologists like Draeger latched on to Japanese Bujutsu (as opposed to the theory or writings behind medieval European fighting systems), is due to the fact that they are still extant and practiced / communicated in exactly the same way there were 400+ years ago. It is more of a primary source in this respect.

Sojobo

This is true, and it is unfortunate for European weapon arts. But, thankfully, there are quite a few manuals still around that have been studied and translated, and several groups are working to reconstruct these Arts as they were, and they are doing a good job with them. Since their goals are to study the combat effectiveness of these styles, they do a good job of figuring out what works and what doesn't.

[MasterPain]

If enough people start using a historic weapon to train with, and try to figure out what works, it should end up similar to the old ways after a few years. Just having the 7 wards for example would speed the process a lot.

[sojobo]

If enough people start using a historic weapon to train with, and try to figure out what works, it should end up similar to the old ways after a few years. Just having the 7 wards for example would speed the process a lot.

What are the 7 wards?

Sojobo

[MasterPain]

If enough people start using a historic weapon to train with, and try to figure out what works, it should end up similar to the old ways after a few years. Just having the 7 wards for example would speed the process a lot.

What are the 7 wards?

Sojobo

From a 1300s manual on sword and buckler fencing from Germany, the 7 wards are basic offensive and defensive postures that techniques come from. Bushidoman probably knows more than I do. Most of my weapons training is Filipino.

[sojobo]

If enough people start using a historic weapon to train with, and try to figure out what works, it should end up similar to the old ways after a few years. Just having the 7 wards for example would speed the process a lot.

What are the 7 wards?

Sojobo

From a 1300s manual on sword and buckler fencing from Germany, the 7 wards are basic offensive and defensive postures that techniques come from.

I am aware of the Fechtbuch manuals - mainly because one of my students is an expert in medieval combat. He has a very enviable job as he is a Knight at the tower of London - I kid you not.

I will ask him about the 7 wards when I see him next, but tbf - he would be first to say that what is written in books is no substitute for what is borne out in the field of battle.

European Medieval combat has been “rediscovered” and re-pieced together by enthusiasts. This is different to Japanese Bujutsu where the actual practice of it has never ceased.

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

Perhaps the instruction of bujutsu in Japan has never ceased, but, like Iai, for example, isn't the same as what was taught for the battlefield. Iai has become more of a technical refinement than actual battlefield use. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but you would likely only unsheath a sword once on the battlefield. Of course, by my own admission, my knowledge of Iai is small. Do you do any weapon-on-weapon work in Iai?

And although Medieval Swordsmanship is studied by enthusiasts looking to reconstruct the styles, the study is accurate, and based off two main things: the study of what is in the manuals, and then the application and testing of what is learned through the manuals through live weapons interaction. This kind of training brings out what works and what doesn't in these weapons.

The "wards" would be guard positions, where and how the sword is held. Although they might be thought of as "set" positions, they are really transitional throughout the combat, based off actions and reactions involved.

The four basic guards used by Sigmund Ringeck in his text are the Vom Tag (from the roof), Alber (the fool), Ochs (ox), and Pflug (the plough). Ochs and Vom Tag are both relatively high guards, Pflug is more of a middle guard, and Alber is a low guard. Also there is Nebenhut, another lower guard, Schrankhut, which is more of a transitional position that a swordsman arrives at, and Langer Ort. Sprechfenster is another that could be mentioned, but Ringeck sees it more as a transition than a ward.

This is a pretty crude list, and pretty crudely explained, as the books do a much better job. Hope it enlightens somewhat.

[sojobo]

Perhaps the instruction of bujutsu in Japan has never ceased, but, like Iai, for example, isn't the same as what was taught for the battlefield. Iai has become more of a technical refinement than actual battlefield use. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but you would likely only unsheath a sword once on the battlefield. Of course, by my own admission, my knowledge of Iai is small. Do you do any weapon-on-weapon work in Iai?

Depends – a lot of “Iaido” practiced today is a relatively modern take on traditional forms, practiced more for “self improvement” than for its combative content. (Which goes for most gendai Budo off course).

The Iai (or Batto) done in Koryu has a different purpose. It exists solely for its combative functionality. Certainly in my group we practice against another armed opponent.

And although Medieval Swordsmanship is studied by enthusiasts looking to reconstruct the styles, the study is accurate, and based off two main things: the study of what is in the manuals, and then the application and testing of what is learned through the manuals through live weapons interaction. This kind of training brings out what works and what doesn't in these weapons.

I would agree that there are a number of individuals and groups that have done a great job re-incarnating these arts through research and practice, however due to the nature of the beast, a lot of it is subjective and down to interpretation – albeit informed interpretation.

The drawings in a lot of the medieval fencing manuals are crude to say the least and leave most to the imagination. More importantly it is not what is shown in the diagrams – it is what is not shown ie the “gaps” in-between the positions shown.

There is of course another aspect of combative engagement that is virtually impossible to transmit over text and that is mindset.

In traditional Japanese Kobujutsu this was/is transmitted through sophisticated processes integral to the Ryu. They are inextricably intertwined with the practicing of technique with your instructor and there is no way that it can be “learnt” in isolation.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy aspects of all types of combative systems (ancient and modern), however in terms of “completeness”, imo there is a far greater chance of getting this from a bone-fide Koryu Bujutsu group. The stream of transmission (and therefore accuracy) is unbroken.

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

Sorry I'm just getting back to this. Got side tracked a while back...

I would agree that there are a number of individuals and groups that have done a great job re-incarnating these arts through research and practice, however due to the nature of the beast, a lot of it is subjective and down to interpretation – albeit informed interpretation.

The drawings in a lot of the medieval fencing manuals are crude to say the least and leave most to the imagination. More importantly it is not what is shown in the diagrams – it is what is not shown ie the “gaps” in-between the positions shown.

The "gaps" can be filled in relatively well by studying through live training along with the translations. No, its not the same as having it passed on, and its a shame we miss out on that, but its still an effective way of finding out how it was done. The biggest thing to keep in mind is to realize that in a fight, using common sense and not getting hung up on fanciness or complications will lead to the effective way of combat.