Gah... Where do I start...? First of all, I think, is to point out that Yagyū Shingan is a samurai school. Ashigaru weren't learning this. Second: those are formal kata. Without "kuden", meaning "oral transmission", kata don't make a lot of sense. Third point: this is an enbu. It's a demonstration. It's a bit of showmanship. It's not at all meant to be a realistic depiction of a real combat situation. And the shōtō is most likely more decorative than anything else, here at the enbu. Now... The Yagyū were an incredibly influential and huge family. They had a plethora of different family styles of material arts. Some of them became so-called "otome ryū", most of them didn't, though. In the 17th century, there was peace in Japan for the first time in ages. Hundreds of thousands of samurai became rōnin. Due to that fact, the Shōgun decreed in four laws between 1615 and 1645, that all samurai needed to be nerved, to use a modern word. Only the schools that directly taught the elite guards of the Shōgun and the daimyō were allowed to keep on training, focused on lethality. Those were the aforementioned "otome ryū", schools that were "flowing, yet still stayed at home". Meaning: the real thing. I'm not sure if Yagyū Shingan Ryū is an otome ryū. If not, don't bother to look at real life applications. On a little side note: this looks at least as if it's supposed to be 16th century'ish. In that case, it's quite likely technically not (called) a wakizashi, but a shōtō, short sword.
G'day g'day! Am very glad you are passionate about this topic, it always is satisfying for me to see people who are keen on seeing these kinds of things within their historical context rather than purely the ryu/hyoho/heiho itself. I would be interested to see your evidence for Yagyu Shingan ryu only being a samurai school and not teaching anyone else. Not because I don't believe you, more just for my genuine curiosity as I am not overly familiar with this ryu. Most systems that existed from either ther 15th or 16th century tended to start off not as formal as they became in the Edo era when things became much more standardised. It does not entirely make sense to me, initially, that a combat system from the 16th century only concerned samurai and not ashigaru. From my understanding, each samurai was in charge of training his own men, and if a samurai was trained in a system then that would certainly affect his instruction. I am also unaware of evidence that suggests what you are saying regarding the complete lack of practical application from all schools except for the "otome ryu". The concept, at least to me, seems very impractical in terms of not only its implementation but also its use in instructing combatants in general. The idea that all samurai and ashigaru, unless thy were "guards of the Sogun and the daimyo" did not train at all how to fight and be lethal" I have no yet found supported by academic and historical evidence. At first site, from my pure first impression of that argument, it can be seen as a means for certain ryu who claim to be otome ryu to put themseles abvoe other ryuha/heiho simply by making the "we still teach lethality and you don't" claim. Either way, am very interested to get your thoughts on these. I have heard references to jingasa being used as bucklers or weapons in other texts as well, albeit rarely. So it was definitely a concept at the time. My video was mainly purposed to discuss how and when that situation may occur/be utilised in a practical method (from my own perspective). I mainly used this video of Yagyu Shingan ryu as a convenient video demonstration to visualise what I was referring to, as finding historical illustrations of jingasa being used as a weapon or buckler I have found to be exceptionally difficult. I am aware of the differences between the Edo and Momoyama eras, as well as the various cultural effects, however I did not really mention them in the video description so I appreciate you putting them here so that they can be seen. The differences are crucial to understand Japanese history and culture. As well as shoto and wakizashi, I have also heard the term ko-tachi being used. I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that wakizashi is purely and Edo concept, however I am keen to see any evidence you may have on the topic.
@@NathanaelTheAussie : evidence for a samurai school being a samurai school and not an ashigaru school? What exactly do you want as evidence there? It's as if you'd be saying that the sword masters here in Europe, who were personal teachers who taught knights how to use their arms, also taught pikemen how to use theirs. It makes no sense to teach pikemen - and ashigaru are basically just that... or rifle men... or... any other soldiers who wage battle in closed formations - how to fight like a knight/samurai. Their usage in the field differs so drastically from each other, it's just pointless for an ashigaru to visit a dôjô. A dôjô that didn't even exist back in those days to boot. Pretty sure the concept of a "dôjô" is Edo period. So... I don't really see what you want me to prove here. Do you really think, that a bushi class - and just face it, the teachers of samurai were samurai too - would be a student together with ashigaru? With someone from the peasant class? And that samurai would teach a class of samurai warfare to peasants? I don't know how this is even an issue. Let alone how one is to "prove" such a thing. It's going to be possible to prove me wrong, though. Documents that state that "ashigaru were trained together with samurai in schoo XYZ". I have never ever heard of such a thing. Proving that this didn't happen, is like proving that something doesn't exist. It's as good as impossible. Not one single school would have written down the obvious: "no peasants allowed". It just makes no sense. The otome ryû vs non otome: again: logic and history. The entire concept about otome ryû is exactly that: it were the only schools that were allowed by shôgun decree, to keep training as highly deadly and efficient as before. That is exactly why they were otome ryû for. They were allowed to keep on training the old, efficient ways. The difference between otome and non-otome is HUGE, efficiency wise. There were no less than 4 (might be 5) decrees of the shôgun that turned regular samurai and the schools of samurai that weren't directly connected to a daimyô or the shôgun, inefficient. Those four decrees are historical facts. They are hard to look up, I give you that. But still, go to any decent professor of Japanese history and they will be able to tell you more about those four edicts. I only remember the last one being named "the law concerning daishô and mage". This regulised the size, shape, weight, curvature, ... of katana and wakizashi, as well as the hairdos. Shôtô and kodachi predated the wakizashi. I'm glad we at least agree on that partially. I admit, I should have gone more into detail: that what we call "wakizashi" NOWADAYS, is an Edo-Jidai construct, as is the concept of "daishô", the two swords that define a samurai. Before Edo, there was no limitation in sizes of any of the swords whatsoever. And if you look things up, you'll see that the shôtô wasn't really that common in the 16th century and earlier. Most samurai combined the uchigatana with a tantô for several reasons. The shôtô or kodachi were used quite less frequent than tantô. It's in the 17th century that the formerly rather unimportant wakizashi was all over the place all of the sudden. This is absolutely because of that law. I think the law was in 1645. Don't quote me on that year, though. Now... I've read over and over again, that before Edo, the tantô was more common than the shôtô. I only found one single source that said otherwise. This was Kanzan Satô's "Japanese Swords". But even he didn't really pin a year on the popularity of the Wakizashi as far as I can recall. He might just as well have talked about the early Edo Jidai. THAT being said: I said that it's - and I quote - "quite likely" that it's not really a wakizashi but a shôtô. I did NOT say however that it definitely is not a wakizashi.
@@kenninast I think my asking for evidence has been misinterpreted here. I will do my best to be more specific, and apologise in advance if my meaning does not appear to be clear. Basically, you are speaking as if these are simply objective facts, in a similar meaning to the way we do not have to prove breathing is important for survival because it it just literally is (unless one is a pure sceptic but I don't really want to open up that can of worms at the moment XD). However, these things you are claiming I can't, at least at the moment, see them in simple facts that you are stating them as. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I am interpreting your points as below, and these are same points I can't see as the 'simple facts' you are reputing them to be (save for the last point): 1) Yagyu Shingan Ryu being only a samurai school and, therefore, never having any of its techniques being taught to ashigaru in any respect. My initial thought: I very much agree that samurai taught samurai, and not once did I mention in my video above or in my first reply that ashigaru taught samurai. My point that I made, that I don't think has been addressed yet, is that what a samurai learns is going to influence what he teaches to his men. A samurai was responsible for training his men, or having them trained. Even if he did not train all of them himself and hired a swords master to do this for him, the sword master's own background and experience will directly affect how and what he teaches. This is because there are universal principles that apply to all martial arts with and without weapons, such as physics, footwork, angling, leverage, fighting an armoured opponent, etc. 2) Samurai and ashigaru combat being completely different systems. My initial thought: This itself, at least to me from my own perspective and experience of sparring with steel and wooden weapons as well as hand to hand, does not seem to be historically accurate, practical, or logical. Almost all battlefied sources I have read describe ashigaru fighting side by side with samurai, save for the commander of an entire force or unit(gumi...ie yarigumi being a spear unit) and his hatamoto. We see combat in these era being, mostly, in disciplined formations; this itself requires training for all men taking part, ashigaru and samurai alike. In relation to what you have said, I believe that a samurai and ashigaru would most certainly fight with different levels of skill, even if they were practicing the same techniques; however, I do not see them using completely different combat systems. I have also seen no historical or modern academic evidence of this happening, all sources I have read actually state the opposite. Therefore, if you have any sources on this that say the contrary I would love to see them. Even if this specific system in the video, on which I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt on as I personally do not study this ryu as a school member. Do you practice this formally? If so, I would love to get your further thoughts on this. However, as I have aforementioned, an instructor's own background in training martial arts and his experience of combat will influence what he teaches and how he teaches it. We see this affect in any era almost all over the world, at least from what I have seen, all the way through to now. A man with street-fighting experience and a boxing background will have these two experiences affect what and how he teaches his students. Also, I don't think I understand the imagery you are bringing in of schools not saying "no peasants allowed" however still not allowing peasants to train there so that it remains a samurai-only school. Surely, if the school only accepted samurai, they would make it clear that it was so, otherwise the fact they only taught samurai at a certain point in time could purely be a coincidence rather than a 'school policy' if you will. Just playing devil's advocate here. ' 3) Otome ryu, according to a decree by the shogun, were the only schools allowed to teach how to kill and (as a result) therefore teach 'how to fight' while the other ryuha don't. My initial thought: I have seen no evidence of this at all in any texts, from today or from that time. The only reference I have found that mentions something similar, is the strict movements by the shogun to restrict dueling and even the killing of animals, as people who were bored were literally finding any excuse to kill they could by killing dogs and cats (although from what I have seen this is mid and later Edo). Because of this, they were very strict on what was taught to whom. However, as I have said before, I have so far seen to evidence that suggested Otome ryu individuals knew how to fight and everyone else didn't. It could very well be one of the reasons why Katori Shinto Ryu made secret a lot of its techniques by disguising them in kata, although this is mainly a personal guess. However, by definition, of universal combat principles (literally by definition of 'what works in combat'), this claim you are making about 'some ryu knowing how to fight and others not knowing at all how to fight' very difficult to believe. It very easily appears as an argument that may be loosely based on an historical event/s to try and put down other ryu while raising up certain others (like one's own). Therefore, I am still not seeing the Otome ryu in the same way you are claiming. While I respect what you are saying, I can't really accept it unless you show me some historical or modern academic evidence of this. I will try and ask around about it and do my bit, but if you are able to send me anything I would greatly appreciate it. 4) Daisho defining a samuria in the Edo era. My initial thoughts: I may be wrong, but I thought this was a thing when Toyotomi Hideyoshi initiated the so-called "sword hunt", making a sword only useable by an ashigaru or samurai, with the latter having the classic "Daisho". If my previous thought is correct, then it is technically an Azhuchi-Momoyama thing, not an Edo construct, although I definitely think that even if it did come in earlier that it nonetheless became the practice that we see today in a much more noticeable manner in the Edo era. 5) The wakizashi being a later term with kodachi being used predominantly earlier. My initial thoughts: Yeah, I have found the same with kodachi compared to wakizashi. It is bizarre that the terms change so suddenly and abruptly, although the techniques in using both weapons I wouldn't see to be too radically different; therefore, it seems mostly the name has changed. This may be the result of wanting to classify weapons more, referring to a short sword by a specific name rather than simply saying 'short sword' in Japanese (kodachi). We see the same practice in Europe before us modern people and HEMA wanted to classify everything XD I may be wrong here, as this is mostly just me inferring based on what I know. I kept onto the ‘wakizashi’ bandwagon at the beginning as well haha had to adjust that pretty quick.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
To add: while it wasn’t super common, Ashigaru have been depicted sometimes using hand shields alongside wakizashi or katate-uchi
Gah... Where do I start...?
First of all, I think, is to point out that Yagyū Shingan is a samurai school. Ashigaru weren't learning this.
Second: those are formal kata. Without "kuden", meaning "oral transmission", kata don't make a lot of sense.
Third point: this is an enbu. It's a demonstration. It's a bit of showmanship. It's not at all meant to be a realistic depiction of a real combat situation. And the shōtō is most likely more decorative than anything else, here at the enbu.
Now...
The Yagyū were an incredibly influential and huge family.
They had a plethora of different family styles of material arts.
Some of them became so-called "otome ryū", most of them didn't, though.
In the 17th century, there was peace in Japan for the first time in ages.
Hundreds of thousands of samurai became rōnin.
Due to that fact, the Shōgun decreed in four laws between 1615 and 1645, that all samurai needed to be nerved, to use a modern word. Only the schools that directly taught the elite guards of the Shōgun and the daimyō were allowed to keep on training, focused on lethality. Those were the aforementioned "otome ryū", schools that were "flowing, yet still stayed at home". Meaning: the real thing.
I'm not sure if Yagyū Shingan Ryū is an otome ryū. If not, don't bother to look at real life applications.
On a little side note: this looks at least as if it's supposed to be 16th century'ish. In that case, it's quite likely technically not (called) a wakizashi, but a shōtō, short sword.
G'day g'day! Am very glad you are passionate about this topic, it always is satisfying for me to see people who are keen on seeing these kinds of things within their historical context rather than purely the ryu/hyoho/heiho itself.
I would be interested to see your evidence for Yagyu Shingan ryu only being a samurai school and not teaching anyone else. Not because I don't believe you, more just for my genuine curiosity as I am not overly familiar with this ryu. Most systems that existed from either ther 15th or 16th century tended to start off not as formal as they became in the Edo era when things became much more standardised. It does not entirely make sense to me, initially, that a combat system from the 16th century only concerned samurai and not ashigaru. From my understanding, each samurai was in charge of training his own men, and if a samurai was trained in a system then that would certainly affect his instruction. I am also unaware of evidence that suggests what you are saying regarding the complete lack of practical application from all schools except for the "otome ryu". The concept, at least to me, seems very impractical in terms of not only its implementation but also its use in instructing combatants in general. The idea that all samurai and ashigaru, unless thy were "guards of the Sogun and the daimyo" did not train at all how to fight and be lethal" I have no yet found supported by academic and historical evidence. At first site, from my pure first impression of that argument, it can be seen as a means for certain ryu who claim to be otome ryu to put themseles abvoe other ryuha/heiho simply by making the "we still teach lethality and you don't" claim. Either way, am very interested to get your thoughts on these.
I have heard references to jingasa being used as bucklers or weapons in other texts as well, albeit rarely. So it was definitely a concept at the time. My video was mainly purposed to discuss how and when that situation may occur/be utilised in a practical method (from my own perspective). I mainly used this video of Yagyu Shingan ryu as a convenient video demonstration to visualise what I was referring to, as finding historical illustrations of jingasa being used as a weapon or buckler I have found to be exceptionally difficult.
I am aware of the differences between the Edo and Momoyama eras, as well as the various cultural effects, however I did not really mention them in the video description so I appreciate you putting them here so that they can be seen. The differences are crucial to understand Japanese history and culture.
As well as shoto and wakizashi, I have also heard the term ko-tachi being used. I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that wakizashi is purely and Edo concept, however I am keen to see any evidence you may have on the topic.
@@NathanaelTheAussie : evidence for a samurai school being a samurai school and not an ashigaru school? What exactly do you want as evidence there?
It's as if you'd be saying that the sword masters here in Europe, who were personal teachers who taught knights how to use their arms, also taught pikemen how to use theirs.
It makes no sense to teach pikemen - and ashigaru are basically just that... or rifle men... or... any other soldiers who wage battle in closed formations - how to fight like a knight/samurai. Their usage in the field differs so drastically from each other, it's just pointless for an ashigaru to visit a dôjô. A dôjô that didn't even exist back in those days to boot. Pretty sure the concept of a "dôjô" is Edo period.
So... I don't really see what you want me to prove here. Do you really think, that a bushi class - and just face it, the teachers of samurai were samurai too - would be a student together with ashigaru? With someone from the peasant class? And that samurai would teach a class of samurai warfare to peasants? I don't know how this is even an issue. Let alone how one is to "prove" such a thing.
It's going to be possible to prove me wrong, though. Documents that state that "ashigaru were trained together with samurai in schoo XYZ". I have never ever heard of such a thing.
Proving that this didn't happen, is like proving that something doesn't exist. It's as good as impossible. Not one single school would have written down the obvious: "no peasants allowed". It just makes no sense.
The otome ryû vs non otome: again: logic and history. The entire concept about otome ryû is exactly that: it were the only schools that were allowed by shôgun decree, to keep training as highly deadly and efficient as before. That is exactly why they were otome ryû for. They were allowed to keep on training the old, efficient ways. The difference between otome and non-otome is HUGE, efficiency wise.
There were no less than 4 (might be 5) decrees of the shôgun that turned regular samurai and the schools of samurai that weren't directly connected to a daimyô or the shôgun, inefficient. Those four decrees are historical facts.
They are hard to look up, I give you that. But still, go to any decent professor of Japanese history and they will be able to tell you more about those four edicts. I only remember the last one being named "the law concerning daishô and mage". This regulised the size, shape, weight, curvature, ... of katana and wakizashi, as well as the hairdos.
Shôtô and kodachi predated the wakizashi. I'm glad we at least agree on that partially.
I admit, I should have gone more into detail: that what we call "wakizashi" NOWADAYS, is an Edo-Jidai construct, as is the concept of "daishô", the two swords that define a samurai.
Before Edo, there was no limitation in sizes of any of the swords whatsoever. And if you look things up, you'll see that the shôtô wasn't really that common in the 16th century and earlier.
Most samurai combined the uchigatana with a tantô for several reasons. The shôtô or kodachi were used quite less frequent than tantô.
It's in the 17th century that the formerly rather unimportant wakizashi was all over the place all of the sudden. This is absolutely because of that law. I think the law was in 1645. Don't quote me on that year, though.
Now... I've read over and over again, that before Edo, the tantô was more common than the shôtô. I only found one single source that said otherwise. This was Kanzan Satô's "Japanese Swords".
But even he didn't really pin a year on the popularity of the Wakizashi as far as I can recall. He might just as well have talked about the early Edo Jidai.
THAT being said: I said that it's - and I quote - "quite likely" that it's not really a wakizashi but a shôtô. I did NOT say however that it definitely is not a wakizashi.
@@kenninast I think my asking for evidence has been misinterpreted here. I will do my best to be more specific, and apologise in advance if my meaning does not appear to be clear.
Basically, you are speaking as if these are simply objective facts, in a similar meaning to the way we do not have to prove breathing is important for survival because it it just literally is (unless one is a pure sceptic but I don't really want to open up that can of worms at the moment XD). However, these things you are claiming I can't, at least at the moment, see them in simple facts that you are stating them as. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I am interpreting your points as below, and these are same points I can't see as the 'simple facts' you are reputing them to be (save for the last point):
1) Yagyu Shingan Ryu being only a samurai school and, therefore, never having any of its techniques being taught to ashigaru in any respect.
My initial thought: I very much agree that samurai taught samurai, and not once did I mention in my video above or in my first reply that ashigaru taught samurai. My point that I made, that I don't think has been addressed yet, is that what a samurai learns is going to influence what he teaches to his men. A samurai was responsible for training his men, or having them trained. Even if he did not train all of them himself and hired a swords master to do this for him, the sword master's own background and experience will directly affect how and what he teaches. This is because there are universal principles that apply to all martial arts with and without weapons, such as physics, footwork, angling, leverage, fighting an armoured opponent, etc.
2) Samurai and ashigaru combat being completely different systems.
My initial thought: This itself, at least to me from my own perspective and experience of sparring with steel and wooden weapons as well as hand to hand, does not seem to be historically accurate, practical, or logical. Almost all battlefied sources I have read describe ashigaru fighting side by side with samurai, save for the commander of an entire force or unit(gumi...ie yarigumi being a spear unit) and his hatamoto. We see combat in these era being, mostly, in disciplined formations; this itself requires training for all men taking part, ashigaru and samurai alike. In relation to what you have said, I believe that a samurai and ashigaru would most certainly fight with different levels of skill, even if they were practicing the same techniques; however, I do not see them using completely different combat systems. I have also seen no historical or modern academic evidence of this happening, all sources I have read actually state the opposite. Therefore, if you have any sources on this that say the contrary I would love to see them.
Even if this specific system in the video, on which I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt on as I personally do not study this ryu as a school member. Do you practice this formally? If so, I would love to get your further thoughts on this. However, as I have aforementioned, an instructor's own background in training martial arts and his experience of combat will influence what he teaches and how he teaches it. We see this affect in any era almost all over the world, at least from what I have seen, all the way through to now. A man with street-fighting experience and a boxing background will have these two experiences affect what and how he teaches his students.
Also, I don't think I understand the imagery you are bringing in of schools not saying "no peasants allowed" however still not allowing peasants to train there so that it remains a samurai-only school. Surely, if the school only accepted samurai, they would make it clear that it was so, otherwise the fact they only taught samurai at a certain point in time could purely be a coincidence rather than a 'school policy' if you will. Just playing devil's advocate here.
'
3) Otome ryu, according to a decree by the shogun, were the only schools allowed to teach how to kill and (as a result) therefore teach 'how to fight' while the other ryuha don't.
My initial thought: I have seen no evidence of this at all in any texts, from today or from that time. The only reference I have found that mentions something similar, is the strict movements by the shogun to restrict dueling and even the killing of animals, as people who were bored were literally finding any excuse to kill they could by killing dogs and cats (although from what I have seen this is mid and later Edo). Because of this, they were very strict on what was taught to whom. However, as I have said before, I have so far seen to evidence that suggested Otome ryu individuals knew how to fight and everyone else didn't. It could very well be one of the reasons why Katori Shinto Ryu made secret a lot of its techniques by disguising them in kata, although this is mainly a personal guess. However, by definition, of universal combat principles (literally by definition of 'what works in combat'), this claim you are making about 'some ryu knowing how to fight and others not knowing at all how to fight' very difficult to believe. It very easily appears as an argument that may be loosely based on an historical event/s to try and put down other ryu while raising up certain others (like one's own). Therefore, I am still not seeing the Otome ryu in the same way you are claiming. While I respect what you are saying, I can't really accept it unless you show me some historical or modern academic evidence of this. I will try and ask around about it and do my bit, but if you are able to send me anything I would greatly appreciate it.
4) Daisho defining a samuria in the Edo era.
My initial thoughts: I may be wrong, but I thought this was a thing when Toyotomi Hideyoshi initiated the so-called "sword hunt", making a sword only useable by an ashigaru or samurai, with the latter having the classic "Daisho". If my previous thought is correct, then it is technically an Azhuchi-Momoyama thing, not an Edo construct, although I definitely think that even if it did come in earlier that it nonetheless became the practice that we see today in a much more noticeable manner in the Edo era.
5) The wakizashi being a later term with kodachi being used predominantly earlier.
My initial thoughts: Yeah, I have found the same with kodachi compared to wakizashi. It is bizarre that the terms change so suddenly and abruptly, although the techniques in using both weapons I wouldn't see to be too radically different; therefore, it seems mostly the name has changed. This may be the result of wanting to classify weapons more, referring to a short sword by a specific name rather than simply saying 'short sword' in Japanese (kodachi). We see the same practice in Europe before us modern people and HEMA wanted to classify everything XD I may be wrong here, as this is mostly just me inferring based on what I know. I kept onto the ‘wakizashi’ bandwagon at the beginning as well haha had to adjust that pretty quick.