Since the Ninja evolved from the Samurai I though that the Ninja sword arts were much the same as the Samurai sword arts. However, the swords are a bit different. The Samurai sword has a round guard and a curved blade and the Ninja sword has a square guard and a straight blade, so I would think there must be some difference in how the swords are used.
Ninja vs Samurai Sword Arts
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hmm... I'm going to try to be gentle here, but honestly, absolutely nothing you've said here is correct. I'll take it bit by bit, and see if we can correct some misunderstandings.
Hmm, no. The first thing to realise is that what you think is a "ninja" is largely a fiction... historically, a "ninja"/"shinobi no mono"/"any similar or related term" was someone who performed, or assisted in performing, particular tasks, associated with espionage, information gathering, and infiltration. Many times, these persons were samurai, simply filling a particular role in their duties, which might include "ninjutsu" skills such as tracking, scouting, reconnaissance, and so on. While there were some areas that were particularly reknowned for such skills (Iga and Koga), the warriors that came from there were commonly referred to as "Iga no mono" (person from Iga), or "Iga no Bushi" (warrior from Iga), rather than anything specific about them being "ninja".
The samurai were the warrior class of Japan from the 12th Century until the mid-late 19th (roughly), but exactly what a "samurai" was depended greatly on the time period you're looking at... the samurai of the Kamakura period weren't the same as the samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, or of the Edo Jidai. Throughout, however, they were the ones in charge of military matters, in one way or another, and, as they were at the upper end of the feudal caste system of Japan, there was nothing that really "evolved" from them... it'd be a step down to go anywhere from samurai status, really.
Well, having first established that there's no real difference between ninja and samurai (historically), I think it's pretty clear that, well, no. And, realistically, there is no such thing as "ninja sword arts"... there are particular sword systems that have a unique, or individual approach... but the distinction is the same as between any two "samurai" sword arts.
No, they're not. Individual schools might have a preference for particular sword designs, furniture, configurations, and so on, to the point of having a speciality sword in some cases, but in the end, that's more a particular schools preference, and that's it.
That's a very generalized statement, and not a really correct one. For one thing, there are any number of tsuba (sword guard) designs, some are round, some are square, some have particular identifying characteristics, some are oddly shaped, some have holes, some are more solid, and so on. And some swords didn't have tsuba at all.
No, that's a product of essentially Hollywood myth. That sword never actually existed.
There are differences between individual sword arts, but that's all. If you're not talking about specific schools, then you really can't talk about differences in usage at all. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu has methodologies that are different to Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, which are different to Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, which is different to Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which is different to Maniwa-Nen Ryu, which is different to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, which is different to Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu, which is different to Mugai Ryu, which is different to Araki Ryu, which is different to... well, all the others. And none of these are "ninja sword" schools, although some contain "ninjutsu" teachings as part of their methods. Within the modern Ninjutsu schools, the Togakure Ryu is said to be a "ninja" system, and features a sword methodology, but it's differences aren't any more different to the other sword system taught, Kukishinden Ryu, or Kage Ryu, or anything else. It just has it's own unique approach, same as any other system around.
Hmm, no. The first thing to realise is that what you think is a "ninja" is largely a fiction... historically, a "ninja"/"shinobi no mono"/"any similar or related term" was someone who performed, or assisted in performing, particular tasks, associated with espionage, information gathering, and infiltration. Many times, these persons were samurai, simply filling a particular role in their duties, which might include "ninjutsu" skills such as tracking, scouting, reconnaissance, and so on. While there were some areas that were particularly reknowned for such skills (Iga and Koga), the warriors that came from there were commonly referred to as "Iga no mono" (person from Iga), or "Iga no Bushi" (warrior from Iga), rather than anything specific about them being "ninja".
The samurai were the warrior class of Japan from the 12th Century until the mid-late 19th (roughly), but exactly what a "samurai" was depended greatly on the time period you're looking at... the samurai of the Kamakura period weren't the same as the samurai of the Sengoku Jidai, or of the Edo Jidai. Throughout, however, they were the ones in charge of military matters, in one way or another, and, as they were at the upper end of the feudal caste system of Japan, there was nothing that really "evolved" from them... it'd be a step down to go anywhere from samurai status, really.
Well, having first established that there's no real difference between ninja and samurai (historically), I think it's pretty clear that, well, no. And, realistically, there is no such thing as "ninja sword arts"... there are particular sword systems that have a unique, or individual approach... but the distinction is the same as between any two "samurai" sword arts.
No, they're not. Individual schools might have a preference for particular sword designs, furniture, configurations, and so on, to the point of having a speciality sword in some cases, but in the end, that's more a particular schools preference, and that's it.
That's a very generalized statement, and not a really correct one. For one thing, there are any number of tsuba (sword guard) designs, some are round, some are square, some have particular identifying characteristics, some are oddly shaped, some have holes, some are more solid, and so on. And some swords didn't have tsuba at all.
No, that's a product of essentially Hollywood myth. That sword never actually existed.
There are differences between individual sword arts, but that's all. If you're not talking about specific schools, then you really can't talk about differences in usage at all. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu has methodologies that are different to Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, which are different to Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, which is different to Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu, which is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, which is different to Maniwa-Nen Ryu, which is different to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, which is different to Tenshinsho Jigen Ryu, which is different to Mugai Ryu, which is different to Araki Ryu, which is different to... well, all the others. And none of these are "ninja sword" schools, although some contain "ninjutsu" teachings as part of their methods. Within the modern Ninjutsu schools, the Togakure Ryu is said to be a "ninja" system, and features a sword methodology, but it's differences aren't any more different to the other sword system taught, Kukishinden Ryu, or Kage Ryu, or anything else. It just has it's own unique approach, same as any other system around.
Yes looking at OP's initial post pretty much I can imagine that was gleaned from Hollywood or reading a Stephen Hayes book. Understand that both do not represent what was. The ninja were not oppressed peasants, they did not utilize a straight sword with a square guard. Heck they were not even called "ninja" in that time.
If you have questions I am sure Chris or I would be happy to answer them. Provided...... they are not ridiculous!
If you have questions I am sure Chris or I would be happy to answer them. Provided...... they are not ridiculous!
I'm sure Don would not mind me posting this here.
Here is a nice read by Don Roley on his blog regarding the myth of the straight ninja sword:
http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html
Don Roley is a long time Japanese resident, speaks and reads the language and knows more than most! His blog is enlightening on many levels!
Here is a nice read by Don Roley on his blog regarding the myth of the straight ninja sword:
http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html
Don Roley is a long time Japanese resident, speaks and reads the language and knows more than most! His blog is enlightening on many levels!
so much to say......but...no....
If Im wrong about the origin of the Ninja than I stand corrected. I have seen lots of Ninja in Hollywood and I do have some of Stephen Hayes' books but I've studied Ninja from other sources too, magazines, other books about Ninja as well as documentary videos about the martial arts that cover the Ninja as well as other stuff about martial arts. From what I had learned from my research is that the Ninja evolved from the Samurai. That there were Samurai who disagreed with the government and who fled and took refuge in the mountains and that is how the Ninja came to be. So the Ninja can even be seen as a Japanese version of Robin Hood. If Im wrong on this I stand corrected.
Now, I do realize I was wrong about the Ninja sword and on that I do stand corrected. From the posts here as well as the links and this video on youtube, I see that the straight bladed square guard sword is entirely a product of Hollywood, much like the Rambo knife. Here is the video I was talking about.
Now, I do realize I was wrong about the Ninja sword and on that I do stand corrected. From the posts here as well as the links and this video on youtube, I see that the straight bladed square guard sword is entirely a product of Hollywood, much like the Rambo knife. Here is the video I was talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bluntly, there's a lot of crap out there about ninjutsu. Some of it is innocent, sort of forgivable misunderstandings and repeated misunderstandings or misstatements. Some of it is people grabbing onto "ninjutsu" as a label, because it's so vague. Some of it is outright scam and devious deception. (Some, I have to say, seem to be outright delusional craziness.) I'll let some of the others with more direct experience and knowledge go into it in depth... but you can't believe everything you read. And you can't believe a lot of what you find on the web or on tv. Very loosely and broadly, if it's got some sort of documented connection and history from the Bujinkan (Hatsumi), the Jinenkan, or the Genbukan... it's got a better chance of being credible, reasonably accurate, or in the category of fairly innocent mistakes. At the other end... well, Ashida Kim is pretty much as far from accurate about ninjutsu as you can get without going super crazy. Which may say something about where super crazy ninja stuff will take you...
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
You're wrong.
Hayes made a lot of mistakes in his early work (not always corrected later, or when it was, it was often glossed over, for the record), magazines, hollywood, etc are no credible sources at all, "other books" could be anything, and from the sounds of things, aren't anything that I'd put any stake in, and I have yet to see any documentary (other than things like "34 Generations", or the Genbukan one whose name escapes me presently) that have anything close to actual information in them... the number that use people like Antony Cummins, James Loriega etc are just ridiculous... so you know, they have no credibility whatsoever either.
There are good sources out there, but you would have to forget everything you think you know so far and begin again.
No.
Completely and utterly no.
Not at all.
Okay. So you know, you're wrong. That's not said with malice, but you don't seem to have got it when I said it earlier.
Okay.
Wow. Look, just about the only thing that guy gets right is the idea that straight "ninja swords" didn't exist. The rest shows he doesn't actually know anything else... his reasoning on the shape of the tsuba is definitively wrong (there were square tsuba, you wouldn't wear the sword on your back other than for transporting over a long distance when it wouldn't be used, so ignore everything he said there), his description of usage is inaccurate, his description of other blades (such as tanto) is wrong, and more. Not someone to listen to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Photonguy there is so much good information out there I would suggest reading books by Hatsumi Sensei, Tanemura Sensei or Manaka Sensei to name a few.
I will look up Hatsumi. I hear he is a very credible source. Anyway, I do know the Ninja were not from the peasant class as some people think. If the Ninja didn't evolve from the Samurai their formation must've had something to do with the Samurai. The Ninja were very secretive and that's probably why there is much misconception about them in this day.
In some ways, I think "ninjutsu" might be better or more fairly equated with military intelligence and special operations, and the ninja simply being agents or operators. I think that fictional (and some not quite fictional) presentations have greatly and artificially glamorized them into something more than they ever were.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Oh dear lord...
You hear he's a "very credible source"?!?! Really?!?! Anything that has any claim at authenticity in Ninjutsu (other than some small sections of some Koryu systems) comes from Hatsumi, or realistically, his teacher, Takamatsu. All of the major organizations are headed by Hatsumi or his students... there really isn't anything else to it. He's not just "a very credible source", in one way, he is the source (more for the Bujinkan and Jinenkan, less for the Genbukan). If there isn't a link in some way to Hatsumi or Takamatsu, ignore it. And, just to confuse you, even if there is, don't necessarily accept it outright....
That's the thing, you think you know this, but it's completely incorrect. There were no "ninja" in the sense you're using the idea there... there was no distinction between "ninja" and samurai... many who were "ninja" (those who were performing espionage, scouting, surveillance, reconnaissance etc) were samurai. Ninja didn't "evolve" from samurai, they were samurai. No running away from any government (the samurai were the government, they were the ruling class and were in charge), there was no "formation", as it just didn't happen that way.
You've been told that already. To emphasise, here it is again:
You hear he's a "very credible source"?!?! Really?!?! Anything that has any claim at authenticity in Ninjutsu (other than some small sections of some Koryu systems) comes from Hatsumi, or realistically, his teacher, Takamatsu. All of the major organizations are headed by Hatsumi or his students... there really isn't anything else to it. He's not just "a very credible source", in one way, he is the source (more for the Bujinkan and Jinenkan, less for the Genbukan). If there isn't a link in some way to Hatsumi or Takamatsu, ignore it. And, just to confuse you, even if there is, don't necessarily accept it outright....
That's the thing, you think you know this, but it's completely incorrect. There were no "ninja" in the sense you're using the idea there... there was no distinction between "ninja" and samurai... many who were "ninja" (those who were performing espionage, scouting, surveillance, reconnaissance etc) were samurai. Ninja didn't "evolve" from samurai, they were samurai. No running away from any government (the samurai were the government, they were the ruling class and were in charge), there was no "formation", as it just didn't happen that way.
You've been told that already. To emphasise, here it is again:
Hatsumi was Stephen Heyes teacher and while Hatsumi might be very credible lots of the stuff that Stephen Heyes says has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Now, as for the swords that the Ninja used, how about swords with straight blades and long handles. Some sources say the Ninja used those.
Now, as for the swords that the Ninja used, how about swords with straight blades and long handles. Some sources say the Ninja used those.
Hayes wrote many of his books early on in his training when he really hadn't spent that much time in Japan. As a result, much of the information in those books isn't all that reliable. In fact, the one "Hatsumi" book which you should probably avoid is Ninjutsu: History and Tradition - that book was actually written by Hayes under Hatsumi's name. I'm informed that Hatsumi is very unhappy with how that book came out.
In addition, Hayes was more concerned with promoting a certain romantic narrative for salesmanship purposes than with careful historical research. I'm not going to pick on him too much for that. A huge percentage of the martial arts "history" that is passed on in most arts consists of romantic myths, half-truths, or complete nonsense. High-ranking practitioners are just as guilty of this as beginners.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Who are you telling that to? Do you know why Hayes' material should be taken with a grain of salt? Do you know which is good and which isn't? My point is that you're still not hearing what you're being told. Yes, Hatsumi is credible. Yes, Hayes was taught by Hatsumi. Yes, Hayes wrote a fair bit (particularly early on) which was not as well researched or accurate as it could have been. We already know that (hell, we told you that). So, were you asking for confirmation, or were you saying what you now "know" as something for us to listen to?
Find me one, just one credible source that states that anyone, "ninja" or otherwise, used a sword with a straight single edged blade and a long handle. Just one. Who are these sources you're talking about?
CNida
Green Belt
This is why I love martial talk. I always learn something.
I am of that group who thought "ninja" were the guys who did what the samurai wouldn't do, namely because the tasks "ninja" performed were less than honorable.
I truly had no idea, apparently. Glad I never pretended I -did- know.
____________________________
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Glad you got something out of it.
Ha, yeah, it's a common belief, but it's just not supported by reality or historical records at all... on either idea. The thing to remember with the whole "honourable actions" thing is that that idea is really applied well and truly after the fact... common samurai tactics included quite a lot of what would be called "less than honourable"... such as using decoys, striking an opponent when they had their back turned, trick weapons, burning down a house/castle with people inside rather than meet them face to face, and so on.
Say, here's an example of a technique from a very "samurai" system, Araki Ryu:
I've posted other versions of that kata before, but this is a bit more "vicious", as well as containing the description of the principles of the kata as given by Ellis Amdur. Ignore the description on the you-tube page itself, though... the guy posting it has missed much of the point.
Not knowing isn't a problem, of course... saying things to the best of your knowledge isn't an issue either... provided you're open to being corrected (which you are), and can accept that you might not have gotten it right.
Last edited by a moderator:
About taking what Hayes says with a grain of salt, some of the people on this board have been saying that and a link posted on this thread by somebody else says that what Hayes claims should be taken skeptically. This is the link http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html
As for Ninja using shorter swords with longer handles, the sources that I've seen that mention that are various internet sources. The reasoning is that a shorter sword is easier to draw and use in close quarters but by placing it in a long scabbard and putting a long handle on it, people will assume its a long sword if it isn't drawn and long swords were associated with high status. Here is one of the sources about that.
As for Ninja using shorter swords with longer handles, the sources that I've seen that mention that are various internet sources. The reasoning is that a shorter sword is easier to draw and use in close quarters but by placing it in a long scabbard and putting a long handle on it, people will assume its a long sword if it isn't drawn and long swords were associated with high status. Here is one of the sources about that.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a good idea to know the trustworthiness of your "various internet sources." The article in your first link was written by Don Roley - a very knowledgeable person on the subject. A lot of the other folks out there ... not so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
