Vigilance said:
Right, that concurs with the reading I have done. One reason why iaijutsu became such a force in Japanese kenjutsu was that the best survival chance you had in a duel was to strike first.
In fact many times a Samurai who wasnt quite ready to die would just concede if his opponent drew his sword first, and bloodless duels were fought in the later Tokugawa where the first sword out was declared the victor.
While this process became steeped in ritual, it was based on the combat reality that the first blade out was the most likely to walk away.
Yup, very well put Vig. Also, most of the samurai during the period of later iajutsu duels would have been seen as indolent and lazy by their fore-fathers, seeing as due to centralization of power there were a lot fewer wars for them to fight, hence a good bit more duelling among the bored warrior caste. The very thought that an 18th century samurai would actually draw his sword against an enemy that he meant harm and then *not* strike him down would have, at best, rankled the 15th century fighting man.
Vigilance said:
According to a Sensei I read often, this high risk/high reward combat strategy reveals more about Japanese psychology than sound tactical strategy.
Oh yes, and this psychology was still a prevalent factor in a lot of Japanese "strategy" up until the end of WWII.
Vigilance said:
Many HTH combat styles are structured *exactly* like this (Shotokan springs to mind here) where both fighters would often cripple each other when they attacked, which led to, like Kenjutsu duels, an often long period of studying and watching your opponent, circling him, seeking a weakness in his footwork that would allow you to sieze the advantage.
This aspect of the Japanese martial arts is not more evident in the modern world, according to this Sensei, because most fights in the street are conducted between one trained individual and one untrained individual. This affords the martial artist more safety and "self defense" than he would have were his opponent equally well trained.
An aspect, that IMO, would have been seen as cowardly or weak by many of their Samurai ancestors, though maybe seen as merely practical by others.
Vigilance said:
Another example of this psychology showing itself to be quintessentially Japanese is Pearl Harbor. The Japanese leaders at the time were aware that they could not defeat the United States in a protracted struggle. However they were willing to take that chance with a high risk/high reward attack.
Pearl Harbor then can be seen as a decapitation attack that failed (barely).
Chuck
A decapitation attack that, failing decapitation, was seen as an action that would *delay* opposition from the Americans long enough for the Japanese to have established Naval and Air supremeacy, or at worst a stepping point for a strong position in a negotiated 'divvying up' of the Pacific ("cow the imperial Americans"). Basically, a no-lose situation in their minds. So a failure in initial purpose, but still a sharp blow nonetheless. IMO the Japanese even continued this high risk/high reward attitude that led them to underestimate the United States in 1) industrial infrastructure, which produced and repaired warships at a shocking rate, 2) national furor over the sneak attack, and 3) unwillingness to even contemplate anything but complete victory in the Pacific in light of 1) and 2). Several naval battles which really set the tone for American victory in the Pacific, IMO, where luck and ingenuity overcame the Samurai "do-or-die at all costs" mentality (Midway, etc). So I do agree with you, Pearl Harbor and even later Japanese defeats in the Pacific were, IMO, the pinnacle of this "strike hardest, cut him down" psychology.
Barsoomcore said:
Yep, that's exactly what I'd do.
I'm not saying that a Japanese swordsman wouldn't know how to handle a thrust -- the katana is an excellent thrusting weapon, and knowing how to use the curve of the blade (and how to flip the blade, or, as you described, pull the angle of a cut and get past a careless block) is critical to katana use.
It's the lunge that I think constitutes the biggest opportunity of the rapier wielder. Not many Japanese forms feature such an extension of the body -- with a katana it would be extraordinarily dangerous (and mostly ineffective) -- and I expect that a kendoka would be unlikely to expect such an attack and could be caught off guard by the rapier user. The lunge drastically increases (to use the Japanese term) ma-ai -- the "one-step" distance of mutual danger. Someone used to katana would be likely, I think, to consider themselves out of range and thus leave themselves open to a full-extension lunge.
But knowing about the lunge, with my katana I'd do exactly what led suggested. Or I might not even wait for the attack -- I suspect a charge, with the strong of the katana driving the rapier out of line and sliding up straight at the throat, would force the rapier guy to scramble backwards. I don't see any obvious counter for him if I keep moving fast enough to prevent him from disengaging and counter-thrusting, and I'm pretty sure that even if he does I'm going to slice his throat open in a thoroughly fatal manner.
Right, I didnt really come across that well. I realized that your discussion was about the lunge/thrust. I guess my diatribe was really intended to infer that being prepared to defend against a thrust would still allow a samurai to be prepared for a lunge; the distance and speed that is covered by a spear thrust by an experienced user could be compared to a rapier. What little spear/bo technique that I've learned regarding thrusting at a distance include a deeper lunge-like stance and pronounced thrust in order to remain well out of the reach of a swordsman even during a strike. Remember too that a true rapier thrust is not the same as the extreme extension of a smallsword or modern fencing lunge; the Rapier was a much heavier and longer weapon and the techniques are not the same. That being said, though, I do concede that it is entirely possible and even likely that a samurai, through not being familiar, could expect a rapier/swordsman to attempt to maintain distance (
ma-ai) and find himself in a tub of trouble the first time he tried to close to that distance by springing into ma-ai, sword in hasso-gamae for a kesa-giri strike, and then staring curiously at the 4 inches of steel he just impaled himself on
.
I like your descriptions, and your idea of refusing to wait is very samurai
. There are plenty of techniques that could work. Heck, grabbing the end of the rapier with your off hand (hopefully wearing kote or heavy gloves
) and simply hacking the fella's hand off with a one-handed strike is an option; off-handed parries vs rapier are not unknown, and wrist/hand attacks with a katana are very quick and hard to anticipate if done correctly.
I do have to agree with the two of you though; many Samurai did not typically "play defense" with one another. There was a chapter written by a 17th century samurai in a book on samurai writing that I read a while back that went something like this (again, not an exact quote, but a paraphrase of something I've always liked):
"To win, one must attack fast and strike true.
To defend, one must attack fast and strike true.
To parry is to admit weakness and ones fear of death.
Only by refusing thought of death and maintaining singular purpose of action can one prevail, always victorious, even in death."
This particular samurai (whose name escapes me also at the moment) was reknowned for killing over 80 men and taking many injuries that he survived, and living to a ripe old age. It was said that in pitched battle he would leap into the thickest of enemy, simply striking and striking again until all were dead or fled, never once giving even consideration to the weapons arrayed against him other than to slap them aside in order to strike down the wielder.
Barsoomcore said:
I think there was a realisation that surviving (rather than winning) a fight was as much luck as anything else.
That, and simply the cultural psychology of total refusal of the japanese warrior to acknowledge that death held any sway over him at all. As we all know, the most dangerous enemy in a fight is the man who doesnt fear death at all, or believes he has nothing whatsover to lose.
Barsoomcore said:
Off-Topic: led, is it wrong that I think you look like Sam Jackson?
Heh. I am neither as tall, nor as cool, nor as african-american as the esteemed Mr Jackson, who I do hold in the highest regard as an actor. But my PC in our d20 Modern campaign "Medallions" is, and he is great, great fun to play. As a matter of fact, the only thing that Samjack and I have in common is a predilection for sarcasm and the 'F' word when in an angry rant
.
But that's ok, several folks on the boards (myself included, for a brief time) thought that you were female based on your previous avatar
(pssst... was that the sound of a katana being slowly unsheathed?)
