Honolulu Academy of Art, courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
Question from a reader -
I’m reading The Book of Five Rings, and I have a question.
There’s a lot of good stuff about acting decisively and immediately so that you can win while your opponent is hesitating, but I don’t get why he emphasizes swords so much in particular.
Masters of the long sword are traditionally known as heihosha [strategists]. As for the other military arts, those who master the bow are called archers, those who master the spear are called spearmen, those who master the gun are called marksmen, and those who master the halberd are called halberdiers. But we do not call masters of the long sword “long swordsmen”, nor do we speak of “short swordsmen”. Bows, guns, spears and halberds are all tools of the warriors and each should be a way to master strategy.
Nevertheless, the sword alone is associated with mastery of strategy. There is a reason for this. To master the virtue of the long sword is to govern the world and oneself, thus the long sword is the basis of strategy [this observation is based on ancient Japanese sword worship].
Is the association of swords with strategy a cultural quirk that just got so ingrained that Musashi thought this? Like, the association between swords and law?
Or is it something like sword training being particularly conducive to facing death, and acting immediately to win?
I could also just be missing something entirely, I don’t really know how to parse that sentence.
Cheers,
Aaron
–
Good question. Musashi was probably born in 1584, which would have made him 16 years old at the Battle of Sekigahara that brought the Sengoku Era mostly to a close. (Some people have speculated that he might have participated on the losing side actually – that’s the opening of Eiji Yoshikawa’s historical fiction)
That means, for almost all of Musashi’s adult life, he experienced weaponry through dueling, not through the battlefield.
Outside of the battlefield, swords ruled supreme in the 1600′s. Firearms were inaccurate in the day, so they were weapons to be used en masse – you’d need a whole regiment of gunners who all fired in the same direction to do significant damage, and you’d need them to be backed up by some sort of cavalry or heavy infantry or fortifications so they wouldn’t get annihilated if heavy arms came upon them.
Likewise, halberds and spears were specialized weapons, primarily for fighting in formation and especially for dismounting and anti-cavalry actions.
Then the bow was obviously a very effective weapon for the samurai, but not suitable for melee combat.
Thus, the sword. It was the most versatile weapons of the day, since you could use it on horseback, in large scale combat, or in duels. It would give you a fighting chance versus pretty much any of the other weapon of the day.
And beyond that, the Japanese had developed a variety of different swordsmanship, much moreso than other weapon. Even for someone who was primarily a gunner or halberdier or archer on the battlefield, they’d usually at least keep a short sword as a fallback weapon. Thus, it was the most well-developed in terms of advanced tactics, thinking, stances, tradition, martial arts, and so on.
Musashi lived in the golden age of Japanese swordsmanship in the early days of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Most large scale combat had ended, so carrying around heavy weaponry was impractical. Then, yes, there probably are some status and religious elements involved, but I think it’s mostly due to Musashi’s practicality that he favored the sword – it was by far the most versatile weapon of his day, and the most useful for the variety of situations he found himself in.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
What weapon or element of strategy holds that place in modern global culture?
In Samurai culture, the sword is a focal point for set of disciplines as mental as they are physical. It is certainly possible to possess and practice many of these physical and mental disciplines without the use of weapons, but do we lose something by lacking the focus provided by training with a concrete weapon?
> What weapon or element of strategy holds that place in modern global culture?
For weaponry, Isegoria’s comment below is spot-on, it’s undoubtedly some sort of handgun. I haven’t shot all that many different kind of handguns, but I’m thinking it’s probably one of the Glock models? They’re A LOT easier to draw, carry, and shoot due to their low weight, and the way it fits in your hand is really convenient.
I know some people swear by Colt 45′s, but I think it’s partially nostalgia driven. I really hope I don’t start a pissing match here accidentally because it’s obviously a fine weapon and has a ton of stopping power, but I think you want the lighter weight, faster draw, and obviously a semi-automatic is superior to a revolver. I’ve shot a few different handguns, and the Glock seemed to have the best mix of versatility, weight, accuracy, and ease of use (especially for people with only a bit of training). There’s a few other candidates that I haven’t shot that I heard people like though, and personal preference is a big factor here.
> It is certainly possible to possess and practice many of these physical and mental disciplines without the use of weapons, but do we lose something by lacking the focus provided by training with a concrete weapon?
I’ve thought about this, and maybe not actually? I was an epee fencer for a while and I’ve done some martial arts. There is something to be said about understanding how your body and something you’re wielding interact with the world together, but I think most of the core lessons from any weapon-based art could be learned in martial arts.
Honestly, I think if Musashi or Tokugawa Ieyasu was alive today, they’d spend a lot more time on martial arts and firearms than they would on any wielded weapons… Musashi was a hyper-pragmatist, the beauty of the sword followed from its use and versatility to him.
Something you hint at that I would emphasize is that a sword is like a pistol; it’s a sidearm. That is, it’s not the best weapon in your arsenal; it’s the best weapon you have with you at all times — assuming you live in a time and place where men go about armed, but not at war.
Good comment Isegoria. Just checked out your site as well – some great insights on there.
Did you see Micah’s comment above? – “What weapon or element of strategy holds that place in modern global culture?”‘
Have thoughts/recommendations on the topic? I’d love to hear what you think on it.
What is the modern equivalent of the samurai sword and the art of swordsmanship? That’s a difficult question to answer, because there are so many facets.
In Musashi’s Japan, just after its warring-states period (sengoku-jidai), the martial arts were still closely tethered to the reality of bloody combat, but of all the warrior arts, only swordsmanship found itself still tested on a regular basis, in the one-on-one duels that replaced large-scale battles, for a time.
So, although riding, shooting a bow, and wielding a spear were still important warrior arts, only sword-fighting called into play the warrior’s spirit, in something more than a technical display of skill.
Sword-fighting played a similar role in the West, of course, long after swords played a major role on the battlefield, as a way for young officers (and gentlemen) to display their courage, in addition to their fitness and skill. Pistol duels placed even more emphasis on courage and calm in the face of mortal danger, while removing the need for fitness and (arguably) reducing the importance of skill.
But the real place where modern men demonstrate their fitness, fortitude, coolness under pressure, and tactical thinking is on the athletic field. “The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton.” Modern American men haven’t learned the principles of strategy through fencing, but through football.
Speaking of sengoku-jidai, the word Jedi comes from jidai-geki, the Japanese term for period drama — or samurai movie.
{ 1 trackback }