How difficult it is to find theoretical explanations of swordsmanship systems.

MadassAlex

Given, I had the benefit of practice, instructors and a very good book to decode the German system, but it seems abnormally difficult to find baseline logical explanations or discussions of the Asian systems.

I mean, the German system is pretty simple. You have four openings, corresponding to quadrants of your body. To defend yourself, you use a technique that defends a threatened quadrant while simultaneously threatening or striking your adversary. Sure, there's a lot more to it than that, but everything else is essentially commentary on that one concept. Just as importantly, everything flows from that concept. The two most important guards in the system are pointing guards that defend the upper or lower quadrant, and each can be mirrored (so two guard concepts provide four guards; ergo, you can defend your quadrants). And if each strike ends in one of those two guards on either side, it means that every strike potentially defends a quadrant while at least being threatening. Then you have thrusts and draw cuts, but even they're meant to end in one of those two guards. So every strike, draw cut or thrust ends in a position that defends a quadrant. Identify the quadrant you mean to protect and use the technique that earns you greatest initiative.

But the logic can be easily traced, see?

So trying to research kenjutsu is strange, because there's a few key differences:

- Strikes are not defenses; a strike cannot defend an opening.
- Strikes do not end in guards; a strike doesn't end in a systemic location.
- An emphasis on vertical and horizontal strikes; the German system favours diagonal strikes so they can end in those quadrant guards.

So while the biomechanics are near identical, the system of logic is very different. I could pick up a katana and use it very comfortably and even effectively, but not quite correctly, if you get my meaning. But what's annoying is being unable to find explanations for the underlying logic. I know, for instance, that kenjutsuka try to avoid meeting edge-to-edge because of how brittle katana blades are -- that's a logical, physical explanation for the theory behind the art. But why not end a strike in a guard? And why emphasise the vertical and horizonal? I'm not saying this are bad or impractical approaches, but I would very much love to understand them.

A couple of guesses on strike axis, then:

- Kenjutsu uses a different system of quantifying openings.
- The desire to avoid blades meeting during a strike means they choose single axis (X or Y) strikes rather than diagonal (X and Y) strikes.

But the whole "not ending in guards" thing eludes me.

IanExMachina

Whilst I don't know the feel relating to swordliness, I have to agree that knowing the logic behind something is undeniably helpful.

Icalasari

Well, you said yourself that the blades are brittle. Perhaps they'd prefer to just move out of the way over guarding after a strike and possibly getting their blade cracked?

MadassAlex

That's true. The term "guard" is misleading, however. Not all guards actually protect you. In fact, only two of the four German guards do this. A guard is a position from which one begins a technique, which means that one is ready to fight from it. So it "guards" you because it makes you a threatening combatant, not because it necessarily protects from an incoming strike.

Gelzo

Isn't it also possible that a method that just made bad assumptions was taught? I think that sort of thing happens in other disciplines.

Of course, it's probably a bad idea and closed-minded to start with that as the default assumption.

MadassAlex

Both the European and Asian systems are based on practical wartime experience of the period masters. While there may be some bad assumptions in the Asian styles because of the time difference and the potential that masters over the ages have confused some issues, the modern European reconstructions come directly from the period combat manuals, so the challenge there is in interpretation.

So while you have a point, both perspectives also come from very sound, practical sources.

gentlemanorcus

I knew who made this thread before... nevermind.

Icalasari

^ Really, anybody could have guessed that. Even a brain danaged squirrel