# Medieval Kenjutsu and Taijutsu



## Meitetsu (Mar 1, 2013)

Stumbled across this doing some research for Gendaijin no Ninjutsu.  This book was published in the 1500s in Germany.  Impressed to see such cool looking Kansetsu waza &#38306;&#31680;&#25216; in a medieval European fighting manual.
More pics http://jinenkanhonbu.blogspot.jp/2013/03/european-sword-and-taijutsu-from-1500s.html


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 1, 2013)

Not surprisingly, as you look across traditions involving similar weapons and circumstances, you see a lot of similar solutions.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 2, 2013)

Hi Eric,

Similar to JKS, I'd just say that there are always going to be a large degree of mechanical and technical similarities between systems that have a similar pedigree... however, I feel that the similarities there are more superficial than anything else. When you really break down the tactical approaches, the differences become very apparent. For an example, here's a thread I was involved in which has a comparison between JSA and HEMA postural ideas: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101693

I would also say that what's shown isn't quite what I would call "kansetsu waza", as that implies a particular approach, and in rather Ryu-ha specific, despite physical similarities. So I'm not really sure of a relevance to Ninjutsu. However, this did give me an opportunity to visit your blog again, which is always cool... but I do have a quick little question, if it's not too off-topic. You have a mention of Manaka doing a seminar covering Kukishinden Ryu Jojutsu and Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu.... describing Takagi Ryu as "the birth place of Judo". What did you mean by that?


----------



## Meitetsu (Mar 2, 2013)

Chris

I suppose I am defining Kansetsu waza as any technique that uses the joints. The old "one hand on the wrist and one on the elbow" comes up a lot in a variety of Ryu ha.  As to what Ryu ha the above is...
Not sure what JSA and HEMA are but I will take a look at that link

I am not really sure about the Judo -Takagi connection.  I don't recall hearing about that  myself, but then again I am not as well versed in the histories of Ryu-ha as others.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 2, 2013)

Meitetsu said:


> Chris
> 
> 
> Not sure what JSA and HEMA are but I will take a look at that link
> ...




Japanese sword arts and historical European martial arts.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 3, 2013)

Meitetsu said:


> Chris
> 
> I suppose I am defining Kansetsu waza as any technique that uses the joints.



Fair enough. After all, "joint technique" is really the literal translation. I suppose my take on it is that, by using a Japanese term, you're implying a Japanese methodology (which is different to the ones shown, due to the differences in armour, and a few other details), as well as the fact that "kansetsu waza" isn't universal within Japanese arts, instead is more known/adopted due to it's usage in Judo, where it is one of three sections of the katame waza (entangling, or grappling techniques), along with osae komi waza (pinning) and shime waza (constrictions, or strangulations). Other systems use other terminology, such as gyakute waza, gyaku waza, katame waza, torite, gaeshi waza, and so on, with each implying something a little different about how the system approaches that aspect of it's curriculum.



Meitetsu said:


> The old "one hand on the wrist and one on the elbow" comes up a lot in a variety of Ryu ha.  As to what Ryu ha the above is...



Sure, but the question to my mind isn't ever so much as "what is done" as "why is it done". If the answer to the second isn't really the same, then, no matter how close the physical actions are, they aren't the same thing. And, in that sense, taking single actions (grab the elbow and wrist, twist the wrist, bar the arm etc) isn't enough by itself... the entire set-up, through to the finish, needs to be taken into account. And one thing I've noticed is a tendency to look to the individual actions, especially when trying to ascertain "effectiveness"... even by some very experienced persons (again, a thread on MAP shows this idea throughout)... which, frankly, misses the point.

To give you an idea, we're currently covering Shinden Fudo Ryu here in my classes... and, realistically, there are few "unique" individual actions to the system (a particular method of striking, but little else). But, once you look beyond the individual actions (particular throws, particular joint locks etc), and see how they are used, and how they fit into the methods of the Ryu, you can see how little physical resemblance really counts. For Shinden Fudo Ryu, it has a primary set of tactics which feature stopping an attackers ability to move, either to escape or to continue with a secondary attack, before you counter. As a result, while a particular arm-lock might be similar to another systems, Shinden Fudo Ryu uses it to immobilize an attacker and provide an opening for a counter, whereas another might use it for a disarming action, or a disabling break. This "why is it done" is what really makes each art unique, even though many of the physical actions could be similar to the point of being identical.



Meitetsu said:


> Not sure what JSA and HEMA are but I will take a look at that link



As Himura said, JSA are Japanese Sword Arts, and HEMA are Historical European Martial Arts. What should be realized about HEMA is that they are reconstructions, based on old documents (such as the one you showed in this thread), rather than continuous traditions, as many of the JSA are. As a result, there is often a fair amount of conversation to be had, as HEMA is more about trial and error in order to find what is believed to be correct, and they sometimes check their findings against JSA practitioners who don't use such methods, due to their trial and error having taken place generations before... which can make it almost a "before and after" situation. JSA practitioners can get an insight into the development of their methods by seeing how HEMA practitioners are reconstructing their systems, and HEMA practitioners can look to JSA methods to check what is written against the realities of combat (as understood in the continued traditions, taken from the time of actual usage).



Meitetsu said:


> I am not really sure about the Judo -Takagi connection.  I don't recall hearing about that  myself, but then again I am not as well versed in the histories of Ryu-ha as others.



Okay. I'm unaware of any connection at all, myself. The closest I've come across is some people thinking that, because there's a "Yoshin" in the name of Takagi Yoshin Ryu, it must be related to (Akiyama) Yoshin Ryu, which gave rise to (among other systems) Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, which was one of the primary sources for Judo... but, of course, Takagi Ryu is not a "Yoshin" Ryu system, with no connection to them, and therefore no connection to Judo (directly). So I was just wondering where the comment came from, whether it was something that Manaka mentioned at some point, or if it was more just a general comment, implying that Judo (modern Japanese grappling) came from older Jujutsu (such as Takagi Yoshin Ryu), rather than implying a true, direct connection.


----------



## Meitetsu (Mar 12, 2013)

Sorry for the delay, my computer quit this mortal coil.  Hooked up now though.  Regarding locks and whatnot, I am actually fairly new to the Kobudo world and indeed the martial arts world (10 years) so anything that seems to cross over or parallel something I have worked on sparks a connection.  
Here is more medieval stuff
http://fursantiago.timduru.org/esgri...eeks_01-12.pdf


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 12, 2013)

Hi Eric,

Yeah, I know, my friend... just pushing you to look a little deeper... did you have a chance to read through the link I gave earlier to the MAP thread?

That "medieval" link in your last post is interesting... but it does highlight the biggest difference between a reconstructed approach (HEMA) and a continuous tradition (JSA) to my mind. Without the continuous tradition, all you have is a technical approach, which is what the HEMA groups seem to be putting together... and that, to me, isn't a martial art... it's a collection of techniques.


----------



## Langenschwert (Mar 15, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> Yeah, I know, my friend... just pushing you to look a little deeper... did you have a chance to read through the link I gave earlier to the MAP thread?
> 
> That "medieval" link in your last post is interesting... but it does highlight the biggest difference between a reconstructed approach (HEMA) and a continuous tradition (JSA) to my mind. Without the continuous tradition, all you have is a technical approach, which is what the HEMA groups seem to be putting together... and that, to me, isn't a martial art... it's a collection of techniques.



Hi Chris, 

It depends on the philosophy of the group doing the reconstruction. Some people are only interested in compiling a catalogue of techniques. That's all well and good, but the art becomes much more useful when studied in its entirety. For example, the Liechtenauer method is a distinct way of doing things as opposed to Fiore's method, even if they are likely closelay related: Fiore says in his works that he studied with German masters, one of them being "Johannes the Swabian" who may have been Johannes Liechtenauer himself. But there's no way to say for sure. The Chivalric classes of Europe interacted across many borders, so none of these arts grew up in a vacuum.

Liechtenauer's approach (for example) focuses on controlling the initiative through decisive, geometrically optimized attacks designed to neutralize the most potent actions from any given stance the defender may take. This is done through edge alignment and offline body movement. This often results in the swords making and maintaining contact, which is called a "bind". From there, one must "work" to the openings while maintaining control of the opponent's blade through "winden" (winding). Winden is the rotating of the sword along the long axis to attain needed leverage or to cede to pressure in order to change lines of attack. The bind is very much derived from a wrestling clinch, as is gruelling to maintain, much like an intense session of BJJ rolling. As the Dobringer manuscript (the first written Liechtenauer commmentary) says "all fencing comes from wrestling". In fact, the Liechtenauer system is a mult-disciplinary system. It applies to all weapons, and unarmed combat and the same movement and combative philosophy pervades them all. In short, the triumvirate includes most often the Longsword of Liechtenauer, the messer of Leckuchner (a Liechtenauer "descendant") and the wrestling of Ott, with some other masters in the same tradition.

The various manuscripts certainly have a distinct combative philiosophy behind them if one cares to study them deeply rather than collect techniques from disparate sources in a superficial manner. Much like a martial arts magpie changing arts and dojos every few months, some HEMAists are only interested in collecting a bag of tricks. Fortunately, they are very much in the minority. You simply cannot progress as well without in depth study.

So the "Art" of Liechtenauer could be summarized as such: You are a wrestler, whether armed or not. Get in there, strike boldly with proper geometry against his guard and don't let the opponent ever launch an attack. Crowd him and stifle him with relentless pressure. Use weakness against strength and strength against weakness. Don't let him get away from you without injury.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Meitetsu (Mar 16, 2013)

Fascinating post Mark, thanks a lot.  I have never heard of any of that terminology before.  And the  "_all fencing comes from wrestling_" is quite intriqueing.


----------



## Langenschwert (Mar 17, 2013)

Meitetsu said:


> Fascinating post Mark, thanks a lot. I have never heard of any of that terminology before. And the "_all fencing comes from wrestling_" is quite intriqueing.



I'm glad you found it useful. Just to give you a visual reference, here's a video of textbook Liechtenauer-style attacks. Note especially the attack at 1:34. The attacker uses a strike with the back edge (called a Squinting strike) that follows the JSA kesa path. This neutralized the defender's stance (a middle, point-forward stance) perfectly and he was hit before he could even parry or step away. The manuals specifically say to use that strike to attack the middle guard. One can see when coupled with aggression and speed, how effective it is. The defeated fencer is one of the best longsword fencers there is:






Here is a video of the typical plays found using the Zornhau (kesa for JSA guys). Note how often the opponent is defeated without the swords ever leaving contact. Contact is broken in order to disengage the point to set up a thrust, for example with the defeated fencer raises his hands into the "Crown" guard, and he is stabbed underneath in the chest:







To deal with the first part of your post, here's a reasonable group of interpretations of some of the armoured techniques depicted in the rest of the image:






Hope that give you some context about how the systems are supposed to look. 

Best regards,

-Mark


----------

