true or false Ninja history

[Gary Arthur]

Heretic 888

Sorry I don't know whether your agreeing with me, or criticising me. I certainly agree with your post. However I did not say these people were downtrodden or oppressed people. I said that some of these people were possibly farmers that farmed to support their family. Not everyone that learnt Ninjutsu was out their breaking into castles etc (if you believe in that kind of thing).
Is farming demeaning? well Roman soldiers had farms, and until we in England had a standing army (approx 1642) some knights, soldiers etc were farmers.
What did the ninja do when they were not out on a mission, or before the Sengoku Jidai Period, before the ninja were used as spies etc.
The problem is with Ninjutsu is that there is very little ethnographic/social evidence of how these people lived. We tend to see them in black and white, i.e as field agents going on a mission to break into a castle, gather information or defending their homelands.
But what did they do the rest of the time?
And of course the Ninja saw their fair share of combat. However what I was trying to say in my post is that the ninja would not have stood up and fought like we do today. i.e. exchanging punches and rolling on the ground etc.
The ninja of old either wanted to escape or dispatch his enemy as quickly as possible. It was not about proving who was the better man, or teaching someone a lesson, it was about survival of yourself, your family and your clan.
If one takes a look at the different Ryu Ha, the techniques, Kata are not teaching one how to fight, but how to deal with an attack and survive. I feel that there is a subtle difference.
As for the question of whether the Ninja were Samurai or not is a question I think we will never get to the bottom of.
I feel that the term SAMURAI is used a bit like the term NINJA. It is a coverall to sum up a group. The word ninja only came about after WWII, before that they went by lots of names, Shinobi, Iga No Mono etc but would probably never refer to themselves by these terms themselves. Its a little like how we use the term, Viking, Saxon, Norman etc to describe people of the past. These peoples never refered to themselves as this. My town where I live for example is called Kettering, from Cytringham, or 'The Tribe of the leader Cyta'. these people we would call Angle's, but they probably did not refere to themselves as such.
It is quite possible in the past that any warrior whether they were from Iga or not were called samurai then as a coverall.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

post. However I did not say these people were downtrodden or oppressed people. I said that some of these people were possibly farmers that farmed to support their family. Not everyone that learnt Ninjutsu was out their breaking into castles etc (if you believe in that kind of thing).

True, but then you also have to specify which era in Japanese history you are referring to.

The problem is with Ninjutsu is that there is very little ethnographic/social evidence of how these people lived.

The way I understand it is that Iga was governed like any regular province, except there you had a number of families who shared the power rather than a single daimyo.

And of course the Ninja saw their fair share of combat. However what I was trying to say in my post is that the ninja would not have stood up and fought like we do today. i.e. exchanging punches and rolling on the ground etc.

Which is exactly why budo taijutsu principles and strategies are ill-suited to competitions.

Shinobi, Iga No Mono etc but would probably never refer to themselves by these terms themselves.

I believe the term Shinobi no Mono is used frequently in the Bansenshukai.

 

[Blooming Lotus]

Studying religion in his youth is not the same as almost being assassinated, nor does it equate with him being a ninja before he was a samurai. It means he studied religion at a monestary in his youth, and does not make your above statements, especially the one where you claim that Daisuke Nishina was the target of an assassination attempt in his youth, correct.

That quote was directly from the article and I guess this whole " argument " really does just go to prove the tentative nature of our arts histories and being they are so old, the manner in which various information had transgressed. Did someone say else where that nothing has been lost ??? Hmmm......Don't feel bad though, because I'm sure we could have a similar argument for nearly any other art aswell. Happy to let it go really.but you're both still stubborn as heck!!



BL

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

Then by all means, prove to us you're not as stubborn in your withholding of sources to back up your statements?

 

[Blooming Lotus]

Nimravus,

THat's all I have done since the begginning of this discussion and since it seems you're more interested in stripping my rep points than the correct.....I'm leaving it here. Hard to fight with yourself right?? Good luck with it.

Bl

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

How does one even begin commenting on the apparent seriousness of someone who uses RPG web pages as sources for his statements regarding the historical ninja...? If those are the only sources you find noteworthy you are in dire need of some critical thinking.

 

[Blooming Lotus]

THat link was one of 6 ,7, or 8 and said virtually the same as the others. Little self check if you don't mind. And your own links???



Sacarstic rhetorism, as I said, I see where you're at and where you're going with this, and being I don't need to yell louder to take the win, I'm just going to leave while I'm still ":bordering on lame"



Peace Nim



Bl

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

Ever heard of an invention called "literature"...?

 

[Blooming Lotus]

Yes, and through my studies, I 've realised that the further you go back, the less there is of that. Ma histories having been disseminated via word of mouth ( making the bulk of it slightly contentious ) is quite generically accepted........ by the rational amongst us at any rate.



BL

 

[tshadowchaser]

Posting a few links in no way makes anyone an expert.

If you have not read documents in there original state or at least an accepted translation then all you have is something anyone could have made up. If you have not studied a system/style and been close enough to the source to ask questions face to face then you do not have anything more than hearsay.

History is many times written by the victor and many histories are glorified by the person writing them.

Odd bits of information may lead someone on an adventure that ends in discovery of facts yet unknown. However that same journey may also end up with conclusions way off base and colored by the adventure to see only their thoughts on a subject.

Now what is the true history I do not know but I do know that this discussion is starting to drift Lets forget personalities and start giveing facts not thoughts

 

[Gary Arthur]

The problem with so many of these posts is the way they rely on evidence.
In historical studies there are two types of evidence Primary and secondary.

Primary evidence is evidence recorded at the time by people actually knowing what they are writing. for example Lancelot writing about King Arthur or Daisuku Nishina recording in a scroll how he formulated Ninjutsu.

Secondary evidence is evidence that is not first hand e.g Gildas writing about King Arthur many hundreds of years later, based on older manuscripts also not written at the time of Arthur.

Much of the historical evidence seems to be based on secondary evidence.

To make matters worse the Ninja were very secretive often using codes or poetic language if they recorded anything at all. Much of the histories we have is written by people who were not Ninja, and on certain occasions opposed to the inhabitants of the Iga mountains.

Some sources of information therefore are better than others. The Bansenshukai, Ninpiden and Shoninki are far better than other sources. And unless you have seen these sources yourself, then listening to someone elses interpretation could be wrong.

All this exchanging of ideas is good but it reminds me of the scene in Life Of Brian where he drops his shoe. The followers stop and make up their own interpretation of what that means.

Sure keep the dialogue going, different points of view are interesting and promote more thought, and sometimes great evidence is uncovered. But don't keep arguing about who's right or wrong. Anybodies evidence when it comes to history is flimsly. We'll be burning each other at the stake next.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

If the ninja were a specific ethnic group, what proof do we have of this being the case, and when did they become extinct?

 

[heretic888]

For what its worth, partial English translations of the Bansenshukai, Shoninki, and Ninpiden (among other things) can be found here:

http://www.ninpo.org/historicalrecords/histrec.html

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

As for the question of whether the Ninja were Samurai or not is a question I think we will never get to the bottom of.

I would suggest reading an excellent book on premodern Japanese society entitled The World Turned Upside Down - Medieval Japanese Society by Pierre Francois Souryi.

Among other things, it goes into detail about various groups and movements --- including the relatively self-governing villages of central Japan --- and there's a few pages (pp. 190-192) on the 'Iga Commune', that was run by "jizamurai without any real suzerain or ultimate power. It survived well [...] and was mainly concerned with defense and war."

The author then goes on to say that the commune basically collapsed when Oda Nobunga invaded in the 1580's, but guerilla warfare at the hands of these warriors continued until Tokugawa Ieyasu made some of the Iga people into special auxiliaries.

 

[Don Roley]

Posting a few links in no way makes anyone an expert.

Can I get an AMEN from the audience?

The problem now of using the internet as a source is that you can pretty much find a web site that will back up what you say, no matter what it is. I would not be surprised to find a web site that says the Hatsumi is part of the conspiracy to run the world from the shadows.

So if you go looking for web sites for the purpose of giving what you say a sense of authority, you can find them. And a lot of web sites saying something does not make it true. I have seen ignorant people quote equally ignorant web sites to push their crack- pot theories for years now.

In general, when looking at a web page or a book I always look to see if the author is using Japanese language material or is dealing with translations and secondary sources in English. Whenever I have not followed this rule, I have been very, very disapointed. There are great books in English by people like Stephen Turnbull, George Samson, etc, and there are some great translations of the Taiheiki and other historical works. I reccomend them highly. But despite all the great books in English every last one that relied on only English sources, even great books in English, was just plain bad.

I think it is because of two things. One is the ego of someone who thinks they can add something new to the perception of Japanese history without going through the trouble of learning even the language. These people usually tend to be trying to prove something and go in with that as their focus rather than the truth.

Another reason is that in the years it takes to get to the point where you can use Japanese sources, you tend to pick up a lot of background and general knowledge about the subject matter. You just have better tools to approach the information with. And those with agendas can't last long enough to get to that level of ability. If you learn Japanese history along with the language and then decide to write about it, you are much less likely to have preconceptions.

In the case of Sifu Adam's question about how the ninja would do against the samurai, the question should first be, how do you define a samurai? All the people that are trying to say that the samurai and the ninja were so dissimilar are probably not aware that a good part of the time period we are talking about, there was no real distinction between "samurai" and normal people as you might think. There were people that were part of aristocratic familes known for their military service like the Minamoto and Taira, but the majority of the guys fighting on the battlefields were peasents. So, if they serve for years in battle, carry two swords and wear armor, are they samurai?

Take a look at the life of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. He is very, very famous in Japan and you should have no trouble finding books and web sites that will back up what I will now say. Toyotomi was born a peasent. He joined the army of Oda Nobunaga and rose through the ranks. When Oda was geeked by his own general, Toyotomi was the one to pick up the pieces. Fairly soon, he was the imperial regent- shogun in all but name using a puppet emperor.

Would you say he was not a samurai? The bulk of the armies fighting when the ninja were known to be active were made up of people like him. Many of them had no big fighitng ability and either used 5 meter long pikes in formation, or used matchlocks. The sword they had was usually only a secondary weapon. Bigger armies were better armies than smaller ones, even if the smaller ones were made up of better trained guys. So a lot of guys born to farmers became fighting men- what some would call samurai.

Oh yeah, it was Toyotomi that made the social class a matter of law and stopped peasents from owning weapons or fighting. By that time, the country was just about unified and there was no need to have so many soldiers running around. By starting what is called his sword hunt, the soldiers going back to their farms with their experience were disarmed and less likely to rise in revolt. So if you are talking about the samurai as a legal class, we are talking about a time when the fighting had largely stopped. It was not long into the Edo period when you start seeing reminders from the shoguns saying that samurai were supposed to practice martial arts and people were commenting that not many guys who carried a sword had any knowledge of using them.

So, I think we should start with the premis that the "samurai" we are talking about may not be all that great themselves. Yes, there were great samurai like Tsukuhara Bokuden and Miyamoto Musashi. But a good portion of the folks fighting on the battlefields only had a short period of training with a sword and once the age of peace settled in, the samurai really became a bunch of clerks more than warriors. So, it depends on the samurai and the ninja with no real advantage or disadvantage based on job title.

 

[heretic888]

Nicely put, Don. :asian:

 

[Blooming Lotus]

Posting a few links in no way makes anyone an expert.

If you have not read documents in there original state or at least an accepted translation then all you have is something anyone could have made up. If you have not studied a system/style and been close enough to the source to ask questions face to face then you do not have anything more than hearsay.

History is many times written by the victor and many histories are glorified by the person writing them.

Odd bits of information may lead someone on an adventure that ends in discovery of facts yet unknown. However that same journey may also end up with conclusions way off base and colored by the adventure to see only their thoughts on a subject.

Now what is the true history I do not know but I do know that this discussion is starting to drift Lets forget personalities and start giveing facts not thoughts

Wouldn't that be nice .........

What are you talking about anyway ??? I have never claimed expertise ( though in a law component of security guard upgrade course yesterday) found yesterday that legal definnition of " expert " and as fas as any court in the land and many abroad is concerned is 5 yrs by definition, which I have 3 and 4 times over. And I have had contact with Hatsumi Sensei, gone over his site, and spoken to several of his students operating schools here in Australia.


Yes I am aware trolls exist on the forums, but I really wasn't planning on playing this time.

boys ha
blooming lotus
.

 

[Blooming Lotus]

Can I get an AMEN from the audience?


sure enough......... speaking of truth, real world realities and fact, pls see legal definition above !! ( as opposed to grand master say ) ........... hate to be a legend in my own ninja suit boys.


. These people usually tend to be trying to prove something and go in with that as their focus rather than the truth.

right!! objectivity is our friend............


Another reason is that in the years it takes to get to the point where you can use Japanese sources, you tend to pick up a lot of background and general knowledge about the subject matter. You just have better tools to approach the information with.

Like how it and most other bar 2 japanese fighting styles began with transgression from chinese martial systems for example........


In the case of Sifu Adam's question about how the ninja would do against the samurai, the question should first be, how do you define a samurai?

Well if you'd bother to look at credible martial bibles and even well reputed dictionary definitions, you'd be on the right track

. But a good portion of the folks fighting on the battlefields only had a short period of training with a sword and once the age of peace settled in, the samurai really became a bunch of clerks more than warriors. So, it depends on the samurai and the ninja with no real advantage or disadvantage based on job title.

no, but just the fact of being in the army changed all of that , just as in any other highly covetted military position anywhere else in any asian society for the period. For some history fact, pls feel free to search chinese gongfu history links. Now that is cross-referencing.

BL

 

[Kreth]

I have never claimed expertise ( though in a law component of security guard upgrade course yesterday) found yesterday that legal definnition of " expert " and as fas as any court in the land and many abroad is concerned is 5 yrs by definition, which I have 3 and 4 times over. And I have had contact with Hatsumi Sensei, gone over his site, and spoken to several of his students operating schools here in Australia.

I guess I'm curious how 15-20 years in a Chinese art makes you an expert on Japanese history... Also, which site are you referring to, bujinkan.com? I don't recall there being a whole lot of information there, aside from rules for participation in the Bujinkan, and contact information for the Honbu Dojo.

Jeff

 

[Blooming Lotus]

I didn't say I was an expert on japanese history, but I do know what varifying your facts means and how to go about it. And on and on we twist ha. Now there's some classy trolling