nry wrote:I'd suggest that any MA that has true roots to actual martial use is as valid, if practiced 'correctly', as any 'modern' MA - considering many MA's are chucked around by people with little to no real world use, perhaps that raises further questions on what is more valid for self defence - battlefield tested stuff or modern stuff which people say is valid but has nothing but people's thoughts and ideas to go on for reasoning...
The final major "battlefield test" of samurai martial techniques was the Satsuma rebellion, which didn't go very well for the Samurai:
"The final blow to conservative samurai came in the 1877 Satsuma rebellion, when the government's newly drafted army, trained in European infantry techniques and armed with modern Western guns, defeated the last resistance of the traditional samurai warriors. With the exception of these few samurai outbreaks, Japan's domestic transformation proceeded with remarkable speed, energy, and the cooperation of the people. This phenomenon is one of the major characteristics of Japan's modern history."http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/j ... _meiji.htm
I question the utility of such "battlefield testing" for the scenarios that people worry about for self defence. The effectiveness of groups of people is central to winning on the battlefield, whereas self defence is by definition about a single person.
I also wonder how much of what samurai learnt in the distinct past from the battlefield has been transmitted to the present day, much of it would be implicit knowledge, and I suspect much of what was transmitted would be forgot or mutate over the years.
I think you have to test stuff for yourself regardless of whether it was invented 2 or 200 years ago.
"We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure." Karl Popper