Do you have a long and a short sword?

[goColt]

I was re-reading Musashi's The Book of Five Rings. In the Wind Book, when speaking of extra-long swords used by other schools, Musashi states:

"It is difficult for these people to cut the enemy when at close quarters because of the length of the long sword. The blade path is large so the long sword is an encumbrance, and they are at a disadvantage compared to the man armed with a short companion sword.

From olden times it has been said: Great and small go together."

It occurred to me that this can be applied to modern times in at least two ways:
1. Have a long-gun (rifle or shotgun) in addition to a handgun. Of course being adept at using both long and short.
2. Have two handguns, a primary and a backup gun. Usually the primary is a larger frame and possibly larger caliber, although I prefer to have both of the same caliber and even accept the same magazines when possible.

Do you subscribe to either of these two? Or do you have another interpretation of this passage? I understand there is a lot more to the subject but it jumped out at me during the read.

What do you think?

 

[printcraft]

Depends on the time of day.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That's the great thing about a pistol. It's a short sword when you need it, a long sword when you need it, and a bow when you need it.

 

[iChokePeople]

That's the great thing about a pistol. It's a short sword when you need it, a long sword when you need it, and a bow when you need it.

And a club when you need that. And a can/bottle opener, and a crab cracker, and...

 

[BugI02]

To interpret that idea for modern times, I would hold the defensive handgun to be the 'long sword' and some form of combat knife to be the short sword, for engaging at ranges where the long sword's reach is compromised.

 

[IndyGunworks]

To interpret that idea for modern times, I would hold the defensive handgun to be the 'long sword' and some form of combat knife to be the short sword, for engaging at ranges where the long sword's reach is compromised.

I would argue otherwise... they are talking about battle, not walking down the market to buy potatoes... the long sword is your rifle, and if they get in to close you use the handgun because its less cumbersome.... you use it to create enough distance and safety where you can go back to the better cutting power of the long sword... ie rifle.... again we are talking about battle with this analogy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To interpret that idea for modern times, I would hold the defensive handgun to be the 'long sword' and some form of combat knife to be the short sword, for engaging at ranges where the long sword's reach is compromised.

At what range can I not use a pistol because its reach is compromised by being too close?

I would argue otherwise... they are talking about battle, not walking down the market to buy potatoes... the long sword is your rifle, and if they get in to close you use the handgun because its less cumbersome.... you use it to create enough distance and safety where you can go back to the better cutting power of the long sword... ie rifle.... again we are talking about battle with this analogy.

Same question. At what distance should I stop using a rifle because it is too cumbersome?

How about he's actually talking about swords. It is not an analogy. Its really about swords. Guns don't have the same limitations. Its why guns are the preferred man portable method of killing people.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Same question. At what distance should I stop using a rifle because it is too cumbersome?

How about he's actually talking about swords. It is not an analogy. Its really about swords. Guns don't have the same limitations. Its why guns are the preferred man portable method of killing people.

If I were attacked while sitting in a car, I would probably choose a pistol over a rifle for my defense, if both were handy. If I were on my feet or the ground and my attacker was entangled with me I would probably choose a pistol over a rifle, if both were handy. I have been places with a long bolt action rifle, where I wished I had a handgun to keep me company. A scoped long rifle is a great tool on the open plain, but ill suited to a fight in a phone booth.


I think the OP's analogy is relevant. IMHO, most of the five rings is generally about fighting rather than swordsmanship and is applicable today.

A warrior should not have a favorite weapon.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I have different firearms that are designed to be used at different ranges. I only have one sword, a full size katana. I want something handier eventually.

 

[Leadeye]

Long sword. Short sword.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would say that the principle stands on merit although our firearms are more like the European sword paradigm than then oriental paradigm. In Japan at the time of Musashi, you basically had two different swords, the katana and the wakizashi. By contrast, in Europe, we had two-handed swords, hand-and-a-half (a/k/a b*stard) swords, long swords, broad swords, rapiers, and short swords. I would consider this transition similar with sniper rifles, battle rifles, sturmgewer, shotguns, and handguns. Unlike Mushashi's paradigm, we do not carry all of our equipment on our persons at once. All things considered, the katana/wakizashi combination strikes me as being similar with carrying an AK or an AR with a good handgun of suitable caliber and configuration for combat.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I were attacked while sitting in a car, I would probably choose a pistol over a rifle for my defense, if both were handy.

Probably, but that's not the context of the question. If I am actively using my rifle, I'm unlikely to be sitting in a car. Read the comment I quoted and it says "battle, not walking down the market to buy potatoes..."

 

[chezuki]

Probably, but that's not the context of the question. If I am actively using my rifle, I'm unlikely to be sitting in a car. Read the comment I quoted and it says "battle, not walking down the market to buy potatoes..."

You seem grumpy lately.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You seem grumpy lately.

Just lately?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Probably, but that's not the context of the question. If I am actively using my rifle, I'm unlikely to be sitting in a car. Read the comment I quoted and it says "battle, not walking down the market to buy potatoes..."

I see, I was stuck focusing on the OP, not IGW's comment that you quoted. In response to IGW, I think that the text refers to using a short sword when in close confines without room to use a full sized sword.

BBI, have you read "The Five Rings"?

There might be a professor lurking here that specializes in Japanese lit of that time. He told me that the whole thing is written in "code" that cannot be understood by the unintiated.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I see, I was stuck focusing on the OP, not IGW's comment that you quoted. In response to IGW, I think that the text refers to using a short sword when in close confines without room to use a full sized sword.

BBI, have you read "The Five Rings"?

There might be a professor lurking here that specializes in Japanese lit of that time. He told me that the whole thing is written in "code" that cannot be understood by the unintiated.

I have. Well, technically I've read a translation. Looking at the bookshelf, its translated by Steve Kaufman. I'm sure a lot gets lost in translation and through the centuries, but there are certainly still lessons to be learned. I read "The Art of War" as well, but when I spoke to a soldier who spoke Chinese he told me the English translations sort of mundane it up, if that makes sense. The example he gave me was that "it never rains but it pours" is much more profound in the original language, although honestly I never could quite understand why that was no matter how he tried to explain it. Probably because I lack even the most basic familiarity with the language.

Anyway, back on topic, somethings are universal but somethings are simply stretching an analogy to the point its torturing the original point. I'd rather read No Second Place Winner to apply to gunfighting, myself.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see, I was stuck focusing on the OP, not IGW's comment that you quoted. In response to IGW, I think that the text refers to using a short sword when in close confines without room to use a full sized sword.

BBI, have you read "The Five Rings"?

There might be a professor lurking here that specializes in Japanese lit of that time. He told me that the whole thing is written in "code" that cannot be understood by the unintiated.

Having read the book, albeit a very long time ago, I would point out that not only does it convey meaning at multiple levels, and I do not pretend to understand all of them, it is also important to consider the purpose you bring to reading the book. This is before you even consider the implications of reading a translation rather than reading the original Japanese.

The first thing is your purpose. Most people I know who read it read it as a study in philosophy. I read it to learn how to fight using a sword (even if I have forgotten most of what I learned in the intervening years). After choosing between two paths here (I suppose you could do both, but they are very different exercises) you then proceed into two different sets of layered meaning.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This is before you even consider the implications of reading a translation rather than reading the original Japanese.

I didn't know this the first time I read it. I didn't know what I didn't know, so to speak, and thought I understood more than I did. It wasn't until fairly recently I began to understand how incredibly difficult it is to really comprehend something outside of the original language and with no real background in the context of the document. I know nearly nothing about the culture it was birthed from, and less about the language.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't know this the first time I read it. I didn't know what I didn't know, so to speak, and thought I understood more than I did. It wasn't until fairly recently I began to understand how incredibly difficult it is to really comprehend something outside of the original language and with no real background in the context of the document. I know nearly nothing about the culture it was birthed from, and less about the language.

Absolutely! To make matters worse in this case, history is pretty stingy on Japan during this period unless you just really develop a taste for it sufficient to inspire a deliberate mission while you are still in college and probably young enough not to have it cross your mind to dig here. By contrast, you practically get assaulted with ancient Egypt.

 

[bradmedic04]

I didn't know this the first time I read it. I didn't know what I didn't know, so to speak, and thought I understood more than I did. It wasn't until fairly recently I began to understand how incredibly difficult it is to really comprehend something outside of the original language and with no real background in the context of the document. I know nearly nothing about the culture it was birthed from, and less about the language.

Time to call in Noam Chomsky.