How did warriors train in period?

In this research journal, we will utilise the research of modern historians as well as the words of contemporary historical sources. While we prioritise the latter in terms of its direct authentic applicability to the period, we believe the works of modern historians can also be used in tandem. It is paramount to note that, as we continue our research and update our own understanding, we will continue to adjust this blog if we feel that new research requires us to do so. The information below explains our research as it stands thus far.

An excerpt from one of the editions of the Heihō kadensho, originally authored by weapons master, tactitian, and political advisor to the Shogun, Yagyu Munenori (beginning of the 17th century)

***

The techniques within Historical Japanese Martial Arts, herein referred to as HJMA, simply taught how to kill and survive. It appears that concepts such as cultural preservation or pursuit and the memorisation of kata as it is done nowadays is a far call from the reality of the period. As stated by late historian, Anthony Bryant, when discussing the teaching methods of traditional Japanese sensei;

‘These sensei were teaching their charges how to kill and survive, not how to score points with flair and panache.’ Bryant & McBride, Warrior Series: Samurai 1550-1600. London, UK: Osprey, 1994.

The difficulty one experiences today when researching HJMA is that one cannot train in a a specific style of kenjutsu as practiced today and believe they know exactly how the Japanese fought and trained in the Sengoku periods; this is due to not only there existing various approaches by various weapon masters even at the time, but also due to the fact that many traditional curricula have changed so much over the years due to shifts in socio-martial and cultural contexts that it barely resembles what it would have been originally. The training methodologies and goal behind training in the eras that make up the wider Sengoku period are so different compared to today that, in our opinion based on our own experience and research, there is very little to compare - if any at all. Furthermore, these ‘styles’ were not as codified as they became later and known today. As stated by Bryant:

‘Conventional martial training did not follow a common structure throughout Japan; every clan had its own methodology and philosophy. Many clans had certain individual soldiers serve as group teachers, working with younger, newer troops.’ Bryant & McBride, Warrior Series: Samurai 1550-1600. London, UK: Osprey, 1994.

While this makes it difficult to narrow down exactly how the Feudal Japanese fought and trained, some research conducted by modern professionals and accredited translations of documents contemporary to the period provide small glimpses of what combat and training was like - though the details on the training aspect are little more vague. According to Bryant, some clans decided to establish their own schools to train their men;

‘Some clans actually took the next step, establishing formal dojo, or martial arts schools, to provide instruction to their men. Veterans of many campaigns, whose skill had been noted, would serve as instructors. This became their duty, and they lived to perfect their skills. They were more like drill instructors training recruits rather than modern teachers of martial arts.’ Bryant & McBride, Warrior Series: Samurai 1550-1600. London, UK: Osprey, 1994.

Each clan interpreted ‘valuable training’ differently, and this, according to Bryant (1994), often depended on the clan’s background, with a possible contrasting relationship between those who rose to power through achievement in the wars that plagued this period and those born into their position. In short, it appears that each clan based their own training and preparation on what they believed to be practical. While the inevitable crossover based on utilitarian practicality produced a mix of very similar concepts, there likely was certain specific unique concepts, such as the Takeda (at first) not relying too heavily on firearms until their crushing defeat at Nagashino in 1575.

The daimyo (the lord of a samurai state) would have likely employed a sensei to be in charge of training. According to Bryant (1994) and MacDonald (1998), these sensei were most likely handpicked veterans from many battles or hired travelling weapon masters. It is likely that, even after one was experienced, one would continue to train with the newer recruits to keep oneself in shape. MacDonald (1998) seems to agree with this. This is also reinforced by the fact that, in the Heiho Okughiso (1561) by veteran warrior and weapon master Yamamto Kansuke, he states simply and bluntly, in his usual fashion: 

“Even after you have mastered strategy, if you neglect it and stop practicing it is the same as not learning it.” (pg11).

Training was of utmost importance to all samurai. Wether one was being used as a spearman or lancer, archer, or arquebusier, each samurai was responsible for his own training and fitness level so that he could fight in formation and as an individual, which was more than what was expected by the common rank and file soldiers expected to mostly work in formation (Bryant, 1994).

Other skills that were practiced included wrestling - both in and out of armour, (Bryant, 1994, MacDonald, 1998) as well as various mounted skills including riding and mounted combat, as well as how to secure prisoners (MacDonald, 1998).

In addition to the importance of training for samurai, it seems noble women also were encouraged to learn martial arts. While sometimes women relied on the men to defend them, others took their safety into their own hands (MacDonald, 1998). These women likely learned how to use the tanto (dagger) as well as other weapons such as the naginata/glaive (Bryant, 1994). While it possible there were groups of naginata-armed noble women who patrolled castle grounds, it is a stereoytype existing today that the naginata was predominantly a woman's weapon. This seems to be a trope promoted in the mid-Edo period or possibly after.

While this information is helpful, there is very little to describe exactly how combatants were trained other than statements explaining that there was great variation from clan to clan and commander to commander depending on what was deemed practically necessary. We are also told what skills were crucial to a combatant, but we are still left with this gap as to their training process and how attainment of these skills was achieved. Whatever small amounts information exists are mostly talking about the nobility and the samurai. Of course, this does not mean one cannot make logical guesses by combining sources to fill in the gaps, but this leads to an ‘historically valid’ conclusion as opposed to an ‘historically accurate’ one. This is something we must never forget and concerning which we should always be honest when conducting research and living history such as this.

We receive small tidbits of information from specific sources, Yamamoto Kansuke’s Heiho Okugisho (1561), translated by Thomas Cleary, probably being one of the most crucial. While it is uncertain how much was written by Kansuke himself or one of his later successors, we believe that much of it was either penned by him or directly copied down from his original writings due to the style of writing being different from later pieces. The words in the text define a master of strategy (combat) and, in so doing, provides a clue to different approaches to instructing recruits and other combatants:

“A man who never taught the use of a given weapon to any of the various weaponed troops would not be considered a master of strategy. Even if a man taught only one kind of weapon to a troop, he could not be called a master of strategy….A man who taught archery was considered an archery master. A man who taught use of the spear was a spear master. A man who taught use of the sword was a sword master. These people were considered master of the weapon they taught. A master strategist could teach everything.” (pg5-6). Unless Kansuke here is purely speaking in metaphor or hyperbole, which is unlikely the case, this presents the following ideas:1) There were people who would teach the use of a single weapon to a troop while not being defined as a “master of strategy.”2) There were instructors who knew and taught all the weapons and combat approaches who were then called “master[s] of strategy”. 

In addition, Kansuke also refers to a specific approach to training insofar as what should be taught to new recruits from beginning to last. He mentions that this is the process to become a “strategist”, which can be translated as a competent combatant: 

“one would first learn kenpo (unarmed martial arts), then koshi (fluid movements of hands and legs), and shinshin (harmony between the mind and body). Next was learning tanpyo-no-jutsu (short weapons), then naga-dogu (long weapons), after which would be training tobi-dogu (bows and arrows and guns).” (pg6).

Kansuke continues to add other skills that a strategist would be instructed in and, judging by the skills mentioned, it is assuming he is specifying a man of rank:

“During this time you would also receive instruction in jinri, the way to lead and control people; Chiri, how to use your surroundings; and Tenri, how to make use of nature’s cycles and weather. Strategy encompassed the effective use of all of these areas.” (ibid). 

Kansuke continues to explain to us the importance of a specific style of instruction to troops of all kinds. It is crucial to note the combination of a strict foundation and ‘creativity’ to adapt: 

“By beginning with the basics you set a foundation from which one can progress to the more advanced. But this is not enough without creativity. You must add your own ideas in order to win, therefore, each strategist’s ideas are not the same. A fight is different each time and everyone has different ideas. Therefore, a strategist who was able to combine old, high strategy with today’s strategy, was of prime importance.” (pg7).

This creates an apparent dichotomy between ‘basic foundational instruction’ and ‘exploration and adaptation through training and creativity’. This is echoed in texts by other weapon masters as well, including Ito Ittosai as echoed through one of his successors, Yagyu Munenori, and Miyamoto Musashi. 

Kansuke provides further clarification and detail on this as well as defining different kinds of fighters: 

“First, there is heiho-zukai. This person understands the purpose of his teacher’s teachings. He does not have many ideas of his own and does not practice much. He is a teacher of students. The heiho-sha is the person who, besides what he learns from his master, adds his own ideas of effectiveness into his fighting and practices very hard. He is a person who, fighting ten times, will win ten times. The heiho-jin is the person who does not learn all of his master’s techniques, but he understands the ones he learns, hence he often distinguishes himself in battle. Besides these… there is another person called a ha-heiho-sha. This person fights very well when he is enthusiastic or energetic, but when he is feeling depressed he does poorly. This person says that strategy is part of the mind so there is no need to study it. However, they do not use their mind, running away instead when they are afraid, and they die shamefully. They disgrace their name and bring ruin upon their family.” (pg11).

Therefore, according to Kansuke, there could be various different kinds of combatants defined in Sengoku society depending on their experience with their master’s teachings and their own practice. 

Lastly, Kansuke explains in detail training and putting your techniques and ideas to the test, one way this is done is through 'freeplay' or sparring: 

“If you only think about strategy, but do not exercise it, your skills will be useless to you in your time of need. Therefore, always put your ideas to use in practice. This must not be dropped. From 2 to 8 years old (childhood) up to 30 years of age I have been studying strategy, but I can not say that I understand strategy well enough to use it helpfully.” (pg12).  

In summary, we can conclude that:

1. The mindset of training and combat in the Sengoku periods is very different from its modern counterparts today.

2. Warriors were taught to kill, not to score points with ‘flair and panache’.

3. Sensei were not just instructors, but were also usually experienced veterans from many campaigns or were travelling weapon masters who were hired.

4. No matter how accomplished an individual was, they were always expected to continue training even if it meant training with the ‘newbies’. 

5. Training took many forms depending on the clan and commander, as well as demands that matched the context. As a result, as well as the huge socio-cultural and martial changes from the period to today, much of traditionals schools today do not resemble the training and combative contexts of the Sengoku periods.

6. There is a severe lack of formal training records from this period that explicitly state how combatants were trained. However, we are given a detailed explanation of one possible and used approach by Yamamoto Kansuke in 1561 (what skills to learn first, how to learn them, and important things to keep in mind when learning or instructing). Therefore, we can make a historically valid approach through backwards mapping (starting at the end goal and working backwards). 

7. Noble women also learned how to fight with the tanto, and many women became skilled in the use of the naginata (glaive).