Samurai and Monks

[Mega_Fist]

Right, DO NOT tell me I'm being a sado or a troll or whatever. This is a SERIOUS post so do not be loserish.

If a Samurai (Katana) fought a Shaolin Monk (Broadsword or Straightsword) then who would be the best do you think and why?

I was thinking of learning more sword arts so do you think I should do Samurai like Kendo and Iaido or Chinese like Wudan or Shaolin.

Please don't be sad, and please DO give me a proper answer.

[Lohanhero]

if you want to do a sword art then you have some thinking to do... if you want japanese sword then that is pritty easy as you have kendo and iaido also kenjitsu, while kendo is seen as a more sport veiw, their are schools that are more traditional, just like many different arts. iaido will give you play with a live blade and teach you to draw your sword quickly.

if you are looking into chinese swordmanship by itself then you are in for some trouble as shao lin and wu dang wouldnt teach you sword alone and you would have to do training without weapons to develop first. even if you think you are ready if you go to another school to learn you must leave behind what you know and learn what is taught. so no quick way unless you want to be rude to the master.

i dont think much of a point to write which is better.

if you look at this silly documentrey on "X-treme martial arts" they show the difference between japanese sword and chinese and show them practising there forms, and saying that japanese sword is more direct when the chinese sword is going everywhere.. even though the usage is, somewhat, different from form.

so up to you. not much help here but just pointing out not going to have much luck finding a shaolin or wudang sword only.

[Hishaam]

Hi everyone, i'm mostly a reader here since i don't practice any chinese MA, anyway Megafisrt, I'll tell you this:

First see what sword arts are available in your area, then visit the schools and see what really is of interest to you, if it's the japanese sword arts(JSA) then i would advise you to ask your questions at e-budo.com (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/) or kendo-world (http://www.kendo-world.com/forum/), if it's chinese sword arts this forum is obviously a good start.

On a side note the "terminator vs robocop" kind of questions will only hurt your chances of getting an answer from the people that can actually help you, and yes you'll be seen as a troll.

Good luck

[IronFist]

Probably the samurai based on experience. Did monks even fight, or did they do wushu all day?

[Royal Dragon]

See what you have avaliable in your area. The pick what seems to suite you best.

[SPJ]

In the old time, it was nin ja that fight the samurai.

Ninja would use throwing darts, gun powder, bow and arrow and many and many secret weapons to fight before the samurai may approach close enough to sway the sword.

If get close, nin ja would escape or disappear into fire, water, wood, air, and earth etc.

---

No fight is fair. Everyone will use whatever is better or give them advantage to fight. Or only fight when you know you will win. such as surprise attacks in the dark, long distance weapons, outnumber, poison etc, if inferior or disadvantage, Ninja always have several escape routes planned and ready, either a tunnel, a rope to the roof, a ladder, a makeshift bridge, or a breathing straw in the pond etc etc.

-

oops, I give away too many secrets of the "dark arts".

---

:D

[David Jamieson]

1.3 on the troll scale.

[Royal Dragon]

I scored him a 2.4, but I'm a generous judge.

[Wong Fei Hong]

subtleness 9.2 offensiveness and topic content 0.8 :D
Like other people said look for a good teacher not a style, as for which is better its personal preference.
Styles of japanese swordsmanship in my eyes have a very sound and deep philosophy not only mental but the techniques really really do work !
Chinese swordsmanship i really cant say much about as most of it is linked to a style of kung fu. So it goes hand in hand with the style, for ex.tai chi sword, now beyond that if you leanr sword forms from something like wushu they really are quite useless unless your planning on acting in movies.

[Mega_Fist]

Thanks all of you brave enough to take this seriously. You are cool.

[David Jamieson]

Thanks all of you brave enough to take this seriously. You are cool.

It can only be taken as seriously as "what's better an apple or an orange?"

[Mega_Fist]

It can only be taken as seriously as "what's better an apple or an orange?"

I think your comments might be better suited on this website David Jamieson, http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/fruit/

As for everyone else, thank you. Does anyone know about Akijutsu?

[SPJ]

My post actually has hidden messages.

To counter, Nin Ja Fu,

Samurai would carry multiple samurai swords on the back, on the waist. He would also carry short weapons. Samurai train to use both hands at the same time or in sequence while both hands have weapons.

Nin ja would interdict the caravan in the woods. The ambush site will have many gimmicks.

Smart Samurai will leave the scene asap or look for escape routes.

To linger any longer, more nin ja will come.

You have to even the odds.

--

:D

[SPJ]

Apples are good for regularity while oranges with vit C are good for combating common flu or colds.

:D

[SPJ]

My point was that it is all about training how to use your hands and body.

Each weapon has its uniqueness or advantages and disadvantages.

Short blades, samurai swords, Dao, Jian etc.

It is up to you to train and use them at your advantage.

I mean the samurai would, nin ja would and why wouldn't you?

:D

[Anthony]

The Samurai were invaded by foreigners once and they lost. They were saved from a second invasion by a serious storm in which the enemies ships couldn't dock.

The Samurai over-ritualized everything (including martial arts). Because of this it's difficult to know exactly how effective their arts were.

They mainly fought each other in battles were both parties observed the rules. Kind of like sparring within a particular school. You have an understanding with your opponent that your'e not just going to do anything. The Samurai got their butts kicked when they encountered foreign barbarians who fought like mad.

As far as Chinese sword. There is very little written history about the Chinese sword. So....again, all we have is speculation.

The escapades of "shaolin monks" are mainly derived from fictitious novels popular in China at the turn of the century.

You might as well ask: "could The Easter Bunny beat Buggs Bunny?"

"This is a SERIOUS post so do not be loserish."-Mega Fist

At least you admit that your other posts have not been serious.

[Stranger]

With all due respect, Japan's difficulties in fighting against the Mongols had nothing to do with an edge of Mongols had over the Japanese in individual combat. Japan's difficulties in fighting against the Mongols had nothing to do with "over-ritualized" warriors losing to "barbarians who fought like mad".


You have drawn the wrong conclusion from the facts.

[Anthony]

Honestly....I don't care.

I'm not an historian on Japan or the Samurai or China. I watch the Discovery/History Channel just like everyone else here.

The facts are:
1) the Samurai WERE defeated and 2) they DID over-ritualize their martial arts. To assume that they were effective as warriors just because everything they did was pretty and zen/meaningful is just naive. I don't care how many cuts a day they practiced or that their swords were sharper.

You can go around saying they were great warriors if you like. I don't see too much solid evidence that they deserve that title as much as the Mongols or Romans do.

Their individual combat effectiveness against a Mongol, a Roman, Spiderman, etc. is all just speculation. That's my point.

[Stranger]

This thread is about individual combat. Since we don't have an individual samurai and an individual Mongol, it will remain speculative.

1) The Mongols' success was directly attributed to their superiority in group fighting, not individual fighting. The Japanese re-tooled their battlefield strategy after the first loss to emphasize group tactics over individual fighting. To argue that an individual Mongol would take an individual samurai is an absurd deductive leap. The Romans faught as a team, and as a result defeated both Celtic and German tribes. If you believe that a sole Roman soldier fighting a sole Celt or German would automatically win, than you are wrong. Vercingetorix would have owned Julius Caesar in a one on one fight, fortunately for Caesar and the Romans, history settled itself on the battlefield rather than in a contest of national champions.

2) Japanese martial arts did not become highly ritualized until the Tokugawa Period, centuries after the Mongol invasion. Let's not fail to acknowledge that Chinese martial arts are also now laden with rituals and stylization that encumber not empower those schools without a good sifu.

3) The Mongols were not "mad barbarians" by the time of Kublai Khan. In fact, it is often written that Kublai was more Chinese in mannerism than Mongol. Kublai was powerful, but he was not the hardened warrior of the steppe that his grandfather, Genghis, was. He grew up rich, he grew up in China, he spoke Chinese, and he slept in a nice soft bed with a belly full of rich food.

[SPJ]

not to be serious;

I remember an analogy long time ago.

1. the double blade straight sword or Jian. we have to use the wrist a lot to point upward, downward and rotate. as if we play badminton using the wrist a lot.

2. the single blade broad sword is heavy, we have to sway a lot as if we play tennis ball and sway the racket using the whole arm, waist and the back.

3. the samurai sword, as if we swing a baseball bat, we have to use both hands and swing a lot from top downward, crossly, left and right etc.

just fun to know the analogy.

:D

[Mr Punch]

They mainly fought each other in battles were both parties observed the rules. Kind of like sparring within a particular school. You have an understanding with your opponent that your'e not just going to do anything.This is nonsense. The samurai did not fight on the battlefield with any stricter rules than any other society. It's like saying that medieval European knights founght according to the laws of chivalry which wold also be erroneous. As evidenced by Musashi just off the top of my head in individual combat they didn't use rules either. This was one thing that annoyed Musashi; that the ritualisation of fighting had started, which is why he went round and challenged famous swordsmen, and as Stranger pointed out, the ritualisation only started in earnest in the Tokugawa period.


The Samurai got their butts kicked when they encountered foreign barbarians who fought like mad.Every army loses. This proves nothing about the overall effectiveness of the army, unless they lose constantly like the French! :D


To assume that they were effective as warriors just because everything they did was pretty and zen/meaningful is just naive. I don't care how many cuts a day they practiced or that their swords were sharper.
I think people assumed they were effective as warriors because they fought a lot. Including in various foreign campaigns in China and Korea in their early days as a caste. Any group of young men that fights so much with or without lethal weapons will necessarily develop into a group that is skuilled in fighting in one way or another.

How many cuts a day they practised means nothing, how many times they cut each other and other enemies means a lot. The Tokugawas ritualised and codified the samurai ethic in an attempt to hamstring a violent class that had been killing each other for centuries.


Honestly....I don't care.
So don't shout your mouth off as though you know something!

[Finny]

What Mat said.


2) they DID over-ritualize their martial arts. To assume that they were effective as warriors just because everything they did was pretty and zen/meaningful is just naive.

What experience with traditional Japanese martial arts do you have to say that they were/are 'over ritualised'?

Anyone who has seen a Jigen Ryu swordsman charging at them, screeching like a psychotic banshee would not be so quick to call them either over ritualised or zen/pretty - they are definitely neither.

FWIW, NONE of the traditional Japanese martial arts had much of anything to do with Zen. ALL were much more closely associated with older, esoteric Mikkyo buddhism.

Also, although many aspects of Japanese life during the Tokugawa period did become highly ritualised, traditional martial arts did NOT - this highly structured/ritualised martial arts style became a feature during the early years of the 20th Century, and was designed to create a militaristic and nationalistic culture among the populace. This applies to modern arts like Kendo, Judo and Karate, not the koryu bugei.

Feel free to dismiss the military effectiveness of the samurai based on your limited knowledge - but I would advise a bit more research before you (as Mat put it) shout your mouth off as though you know something.

:D

SPJ - classic man - had me spitting tea all over my keyboard.

[Anthony]

Ancient Rome and Greece conquered the known world in their time. There's pretty strong evidence to support that.

You don't think the Samurai arts are over-ritualized.......I do.

You think the Samurai have proven themselves as warriors......I don't.

Life goes on.

If you wan't to dispute what I say....fine. But don't just dispute. Give me evidence. Everything that you guys are saying amounts to nothing more than "youre wrong!" and then youre telling ME not to shoot my mouth off. What is your idea of proof that the samurai was effective?

"Any group of young men that fights so much with or without lethal weapons will necessarily develop into a group that is skuilled in fighting in one way or another."- Strong evidence indeed. Come on.

"Anyone who has seen a Jigen Ryu swordsman charging at them, screeching like a psychotic banshee would not be so quick to call them either over ritualised or zen/pretty - they are definitely neither."- I can run at you with a sword in the same way.....so what?

I told you I'm not an historian. I don't know specific time periods and what happened in them.....I'm speaking in general terms.

I'll tell you some general (not time period specific) things that I know about the Samurai (off the top of my head).

1) They conquered nobody that I know of.

2) They were cultured (into painting and poetry, etc).

3) Practiced martial arts and the sword (which was of great meaning to them -extension of their soul). Look at iaido and tell me it's not over-ritualized.

4) Were quick tempered and demanded respect.

5) Were extremely racist.

6) Sex with young boys was considered normal.

Since this conversation started lets not turn it into an argument. If you want to prove your points then do it with evidence and not the usual "your ignorant" response.

[Finny]

You don't think the Samurai arts are over-ritualized.......I do.

As I said - what experience with 'samurai arts' do you have to make that judgement?

Iaido is not a 'samurai art' - it's a modern invention.


You think the Samurai have proven themselves as warriors......I don't.

I never said that I thought that - if your judgement of whether or not they were effective warriors hinges on them conquering half the world then I guess they weren't. But that seems like a stupid means of quantifying martial effectiveness.


"Anyone who has seen a Jigen Ryu swordsman charging at them, screeching like a psychotic banshee would not be so quick to call them either over ritualised or zen/pretty - they are definitely neither."- I can run at you with a sword in the same way.....so what?

No, you can't - you've never trained in Jigen Ryu, so you wouldn't know what way would be the "same way"


I'll tell you some general (not time period specific) things that I know about the Samurai (off the top of my head).

You say "I'm no historian" - and then you draw up a list of things you claim to know "off the top of your head"?.


1) They conquered nobody that I know of.

Read more - they conquered plenty, when they had a mind to.


2) They were cultured (into painting and poetry, etc).

Some were, some weren't.


3) Practiced martial arts and the sword (which was of great meaning to them -extension of their soul). Look at iaido and tell me it's not over-ritualized.

Wrong and wrong. The whole "sword is the soul of the samurai" business is a myth that has garnered great press in recent years - as with most myths, there is some truth to it, and some falsehoods - and much exaggeration.

I would agree that in some ways Iaido is over-ritualised. But Iaido has nothing to do with the samurai - it is a modern art. As I said - do some research before you claim to 'know' things of this sort.


5) Were extremely racist.

6) Sex with young boys was considered normal.

Yes - because we all know how accurate generalisations like these always are.


Since this conversation started lets not turn it into an argument. If you want to prove your points then do it with evidence and not the usual "your ignorant" response.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You are ignorant when it comes to the topic at hand. You might be a great guy, and I certainly don't want to sound like I'm personally attacking you, but you have already admitted your ignorance. And now you demand a legitimate rebuttal of your ignorant assertions?

In any event, I've already tried to point out some of the problems with your statements - racism, respect and sodomy have nothing to do with martial arts. And you obviously have no knowledge of traditional Japanese martial arts. Once again, I'll give you a hint - Judo, Kendo, Karate, Iaido, Kyudo are not classical Japanese arts - they are modern martial arts, based in part on the old ways. Do some research.

[Anthony]

yeah.....pretty much what I thought.

[Finny]

OK Anthony,

Seeing how you're so intent on having evidence to back up what is said, how about you provide some evidence - any evidence - of the claims that you have made:


I'll tell you some general (not time period specific) things that I know about the Samurai (off the top of my head).

1) They conquered nobody that I know of.

2) They were cultured (into painting and poetry, etc).

3) Practiced martial arts and the sword (which was of great meaning to them -extension of their soul). Look at iaido and tell me it's not over-ritualized.

4) Were quick tempered and demanded respect.

5) Were extremely racist.

6) Sex with young boys was considered normal.

I don't see any evidence there...


The facts are:
1) the Samurai WERE defeated and 2) they DID over-ritualize their martial arts. To assume that they were effective as warriors just because everything they did was pretty and zen/meaningful is just naive.

I don't see any facts here, Mr Evidence...

As I said, do some research, make some concrete statements, with dates and specifics, and sources, and then I'll tell you where exactly you are wrong - for now you're just plain wrong.

[Stranger]

6) Sex with young boys was considered normal.

What is the relevance of this in determining the Samurai's combat capability?

You seem to think highly of Greek and Roman warriors. Are you suggesting that sex with boys only makes Japanese men fight poorly but somehow doesn't effect Greeks or Romans?-- interesting theory :rolleyes:

Are you aware that the monks in China also had relations with the younger acolyte monks at the monastery?

*************************

You seem not to be able to grasp that a nation's ability to conquer has absolutely no correlation with the ability of indivual members of said nation to kick butt. What about technological advantages, population advantages, germs, internal political stability of the nation being attacked, economy, etc? These all determine the outcome of war. You are looking at complicated historical events and trying to distill them down to a basic cause that you have deemed the decisive factor. What happens if country A and country B fight two wars, and each wins one? Under you operating premise, either both sides are tough or they both are wimps. What if the greatest warrior on the planet, trained in the arts native to his or he people, is in a lame army overall? By your method of analysis, this warrior would have to suck because his/her army lost.

[Mr Punch]

LOL at Anthony demanding that we give some evidence when all you have is speculation. Where's your evidence?

OK, let's face it, historical evidence is different to scientific evidence. We have primary evidence which is first-hand accounts which in any case are going to be subjective, and secondary evidence artefacts etc which are open to interpretation. Then there is tertiary evidence which is basically historians' supposition and conjecture.

You haven't given any examples of primary, secondary or tertiary evidence, so you're left with your supposition and conjecture, which, let's face this also Anthony, are not your strong points!:D

And that's also why speculation like
Any group of young men that fights so much with or without lethal weapons will necessarily develop into a group that is skuilled in fighting in one way or another. which involves a reasonable amount of common sense despite never having been presented as evidence seems a bit beyond your scope!

As Stranger has pointed out, using mass combat as an example of individual combat is not necessarily accurate. There are a whole load of other factors.

Plus, even if evidence of invasion were applicable, how would you interpret that? The UK was invaded by the Celts in 600BCE, the Romans around the turn of the CE, the Saxons from 400-odd CE (?), the Vikings from 800-odd CE, and the Normans and the Danes in 1066. So you could deduce that the Brits suck at fighting. Then you could point out that by the heights of the British Empire we had invaded and successfully controlled a third of the countries of the world... therefore we must have the best hand-to-hand fighters, the best individual fighters, the best NHB fighters...? Oh no, wait, that would be nonsense!:p

So then let's look at your first 'fact':


The Samurai were invaded by foreigners once and they lost.This is a liberal use of the word 'invaded', and indeed the word 'lost', and it's also pushing it to apply the word 'samurai' here to a general conclusion about 'the samurai' as though they were a single entity as opposed to approximately a thousand years of differing and developing ways of thought and codes of behaviour. In short, it's wrong! :)

Japan was never successfully invaded, unless you count the US occupation after the war. Some (maybe 23000) Mongols beat some of them to take two small islands and then get beaten off Kyushu. They may have been going to beat them in another battle but for the storm; we don't know... but what we do know is the Mongols had already been beaten back to their ships before the typhoon!.

So let's look at this a bit closer:

1) Losing to 23000 members of one of the greatest military forces in the history of the world is hardly proof that you are no good at fighting.
2) One of the factors which helped their defeat was being vastly outnumbered and one was a technological disadvantage; again, not proof of a lack of fighting prowess. The Mongol shortbow was superior to most bows of the period, and the Samurai longbow was found to be weak.

So what was your point again?

And then to further check out you invasion fantasies, let's look at:


1) They conquered nobody that I know of.I take it you don't know of a country called Korea? Try the Seven Year War, during which the Japanese took and held Korea (despite their whole fleet of 70-odd ships being destroyed by about 3 technologically superior Korean 'Turtle ships') as far as Pyongyang (check it out - that's a long way up!) from May 1592 till about Feb 1593, when the Koreans were saved by a huge Chinese army.

Sounds a little more extensive and successful than your Mongol 'invasions' of Japan.

Plus, if you take into account the Japanese pirates (they're called wakou 倭寇　in Japanese... maybe wokou in Chinese...?) who terrorized Mongol, Korean and Chinese ports and shipping routes yet were beaten off and even sometimes allied to the samurai for 300 years, I think you can safely say it is a very complicated history, and though we can't decide how strong the samurai were, your statements are getting less and less substantiated every time you post.

So, just for ****s and giggles, though I'm guessing and fervently hoping you are not trying to use any of these points to back up your claims about the samurai being useless fighters...!?... in which case you're what, providing us with a list to prove to us that you really are no historian...?!:


2) They were cultured (into painting and poetry, etc).So were the Celts (La Tene pottery culture ring any bells? Bardic universities?), Saxons (a regulated legal system, fine artefacts), the Vikings (some beautiful carvings, the first democracy, etc), the Romans (I'm not even trying), the Greeks (you brought them up too, remember?), the Egyptians, the Mongols (just because they were basically nomadic doesn't mean they didn't aprreciate the Silk Road they controlled or even create their own artwork, textiles etc, or even have a legal system), the Moghuls, the British, the Nazis... are you feeling stupid yet?

So did you have a point or was this a random factoid?! BTW although there was a general 'bunbuitchi' tradition there are many many examples of exceptions to them being cultured.


3) Practiced martial arts and the sword (which was of great meaning to them -extension of their soul). Look at iaido and tell me it's not over-ritualizedAs did the European knights - they often had formalized martial schools, and worship of the sword was common in many European cultures too; just look at Excalibur legends and the crusaders praying to their cross-shaped swords before battle, and the Vikings having to die with a sword in the hand to go to Valhalla...

And as somebody has pointed out, iaido is a much later version of iaijutsu, a sword skill used in single combat for when somebody attacked you in your home.


4) Were quick tempered and demanded respect.
All of them. Riiiight.:rolleyes:


5) Were extremely racist. Yes. All of them.

Whereas of course, contemporary Europeans, Chinese, other Asians etc etc were paragons of politically correct virtue?


6) Sex with young boys was considered normal. See, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians (not with boys but with sisters mothers etc), Macedonians etc.

Considering in your past posts you've complained about the number of trolls on this site, and then you come on and post a load of drivel, including saying 'I don't care' and 'I'm no historian' like they're badges of pride, I don't rate your trolling very highly.

[Anthony]

You post one thing and ten people can misinterpret your meaning. Then you have to argue with those ten people. It becomes too time consuming trying to word everything like a law document so it doesn't get misinterpreted while talking back to so many people.

Some of the things posted above were appreciated. Others....my head is spinning trying to figue out how some of you derived the meanings that you did.

My random facts were not intended prove anything.....they were just random, as I already stated.

I would gladly discuss this but it seems it's unexpectedly getting too involved for the time I can give it.

"
Japan was never successfully invaded, unless you count the US occupation after the war. Some (maybe 23000) Mongols beat some of them to take two small islands and then get beaten off Kyushu. They may have been going to beat them in another battle but for the storm; we don't know... but what we do know is the Mongols had already been beaten back to their ships before the typhoon!.

So let's look at this a bit closer:

1) Losing to 23000 members of one of the greatest military forces in the history of the world is hardly proof that you are no good at fighting.
2) One of the factors which helped their defeat was being vastly outnumbered and one was a technological disadvantage; again, not proof of a lack of fighting prowess. The Mongol shortbow was superior to most bows of the period, and the Samurai longbow was found to be weak. "

This is the type of response I thought and hoped I would get right off the bat.

When I said "i'm no historian" I was saying "this is what I know and this is what I think based on that...now tell me what I don't know." All I got was "youre ignorant." This is all too common in the TCMA community....not just on this thread. If someone speaks up, disagree but tell them why. To come back with "youre ignorant" is really saying nothing.

I'm not out to prove anything since I don't have any "set in stone" opinions on a subject I don't know too much about....I can see (re-reading my posts) that I made it seem like I did have set opinions.

"LOL at Anthony demanding that we give some evidence when all you have is speculation. Where's your evidence?"

It should work the other way around. If I don't believe in something and you do....the burden of proof is on you.

Anyway...like I said I would get into it but time doesn't permit me and I didn't think it would escalate this much when I first posted.

Finny, I'm sure you know youre stuff but you just don't present it in the right way. It's been like an argument in the third grade with you. "Proove it!....you proove it first!....no, you"....etc. Mat came back with something informative but Finny, you wasted like three posts doing nothing but calling me ignorant, which misses the point with someone who is telling you that they are ignorant. I share the blame for this. My posts did not have the tone they should have had. I think I'm guilty of playing devil's advocate in order to get something out of people. That and posting while tired and grouchy after work.

[Finny]

Finny, I'm sure you know youre stuff but you just don't present it in the right way. It's been like an argument in the third grade with you. "Proove it!....you proove it first!....no, you"....etc. Mat came back with something informative but you wasted like three posts doing nothing but calling me ignorant, which misses the point with someone who is telling you that they are ignorant. I share the blame for this. My posts did not have the tone they should have had.

Anthony, I apologise if I came across as antagonistic - as I said in one of my posts, I didn't mean for any of my posts to seem like a personal attack.


"LOL at Anthony demanding that we give some evidence when all you have is speculation. Where's your evidence?"

It should work the other way around. If I don't believe in something and you do....the burden of proof is on you.

To be fair here Anthony - you were the one who made the various claims. I guess that was my point - you made a variety of claims (having admitted that you're no expert, you then presented them as facts), many of which seemed either ridiculous or completely off-topic, and then when called on them, you demanded that we provide evidence to refute your claims. Unfortunately the burden of proof is on you.

Also, dismissing my posts as "doing nothing but calling you ignorant" is a bit unfair. I did say you were ignorant regarding this particular subject - but I also tried to provide you with enough information to go out and do some reading... all you had to do was spend five minutes on google, looking some things up. I don't really believe in spoon feeding people.

I guess the main point I was trying to make - which I admit I never really articulated - was that the martial arts practised by the samurai still exist. There are traditional martial arts in Japan (the Japanese were VERY meticulous when it came to writing records) that date back to 1360 or so. These koryu bugei (old school martial traditions) are VERY different to iaido or kendo or judo or whatever. As I said before, they have nothing to do with Zen, and are far from over-ritualised.

This will be my last post to this thread. Have fun.

Brendan Finn

[PangQuan]

It is not to say, "the samurai were effective warriors"

rather that, there were samurai who developed skills in combat that went unrivaled throughout thier own civilization.

These are the effective samurai. When a man becomes undefeatable, in actual mortal combat, he has then at least reached a state of awarness in this field to understand combat.

Even the most novice of individuals can swing a sword. And even the most novice of sword swingers can kill. To be able to walk into that repeatedly and come out on top with your life in tact and your enemies on your blade, you have become an effective warrior.

I hate to pull the name because it is such an obvious one, but it is however recognizable to most. Miyamoto Musashi, is such one of these individuals.

Look into the books of history and you will find others.

Again, as with any martial art, it is the individual that is great, be it large or small scale battle.

It was Alexander the Great, and his generals whom were the great warriors, they simply led the pack of beasts by the collar to do the bidding of the elite.

Sun Tzu, Joan of Arc, Ceasar, Gangis Khan, Lu Bu, there is an increadable list of these individuals who have surpassed the surrounding mass in ways of martial effectiveness, and they can be found in any culture be it small, large, intermixed, or secluded.

This is simply the way of the evolution of combat, which is inherint within the nature of man.

[Mr Punch]

Fair enough Anthony, sorry if I came across as a bit high-handed...

but I would have thought that if you don't really know what you're talking about you (generic) would frame the supposition in a question rather than a statement like:
The Samurai got their butts kicked when they encountered foreign barbarians who fought like mad.


Anyway, cheers.