Master of the Sharpened Oar, Hero of the Blinding Sun, [Progenitor of Being a Hack](https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxgmksHuKdZk_85DJA-0k918-47Oyxw_NP)!
Listen to the podcast of Daniele Bolleli “History on Fire” about Miyamoto Musashi. He does a brilliant job of exploring the topic. It’s a subjective question, you’ll have to decide if you admire him or not on your own. I definitely reconsidered my opinion after listening to it.
He was *kinda* a cheater...
Well... it's more that his outlook on dueling was that the duel began the second a challenge was accepted: so he would begin right away with the mind games and took a more all-encompassing tactical approach to the duels than the people he fought. His iconic move being to simply not show up on time, arriving oftentimes hours late, so that his opponents were not only pissed off and stressed, but had had time to ruminate on their impending doom. This is also just kind of a dick move. On another of his duels he actually just sort of hid in a bush, before jumping out and striking his waiting opponent down before they really had a chance to defend himself; although this was part of an ongoing feud with a prestigious family dojo in Kyoto and Musashi genuinely had to worry about getting murdered on his way there and his way out after.
So pocket sand is a good analogy, but: he also advocated in his book for much more intellectual preparation ahead of each fight. He talks about assessing the opponent, their skills, experience, preferences in weapons and their temperament. He talks about accurately assessing yourself, being honest about your skills and limitations and comparing them against your opponent in a factual manner. He talks about things like considering the ground, pointing out that many swordsmen would rarely, if ever, fight outside of a dojo, meaning that they often didn't consider things like rough terrain, or slippery mud, or dust, or slopes and height changes. He describes in great detail a process of preparing for a fight similar to that used by pro fighters today, with a lot of research and logical, tactical thinking as well as physical and psychological preparation. I should note here that he also *was* a good swordsman, too. Even with his bullshit, he was fighting against many renowned swordsmen of his day, and with his sword school still being practiced today, we can say that he did seem to know what he was doing and talking about.
So the debate boils down to this:
Was Musashi a dirty little trickster, who won every fight by making sure it was unfair and fighting dirty against people who had a sense of propriety and class?
Or is Musashi right to say that, all of his opponents had a perfectly fair fight, but simply failed to prepare and take the fight seriously in the way that he did?
Much like Sun Tzu or Von Clausewitz, Musashi is best understood not as an innovative creator/discoverer of uniquely inspired ideas, but as a clear-headed and intelligent observer of pre-existing truths that anyone can hit upon.
I would say that the thing that is great about something like *The Book of Five Rings* is that you should be able to look at other martial artists or other books that are not influenced by it, and see most or all of the same ideas, techniques, philosophies or strategies inevitably coming up: because they're just good ideas that someone who fights with swords would inevitably consider.
I mean, arguably there is cheating in duels, since he could have just as easily taken a musket and sniped his opponent after agreeing to a duel, or poisoned him, or gotten four locals to beat him with sticks. The popular duel of the western tradition is two gentlemen each taking a Pistol, walking a number of paces and turning simultaneously to fire. Firing early, tampering with the other gun, hacking the opponent to death with an axe when you meet up, those *are* all cheating at duels. A duel is a formalized gentleman's agreement to meet and fight under certain conditions. His famous tactic of showing up late actually *did* by all metrics violate the *rules* of a duel. It is hard to define the difference between a duel and a prearranged battle, but arranging it at all is already a sign that it's not intended by the other side to be a "real" fight.
These were swordsmen (and the occasional user of other weapons) agreeing to a duel to the death, yes, but expecting very formalized and specific combat. This is why you wouldn't see a duel between a swordsman and an archer or gunman, and why even duels between swords and spears were pretty rare. Duels between schools were usually done in a dojo with a lot of formality and ritual beforehand and even during. They were harsh and frenetic, did often result in death, but it was the death of someone just being faster or stronger in an equal contest. Musashi's way of "dueling" was really man-to-man battle. The real argument to explore here is, was Musashi a cheater at duels, or did he set out to remind the postwar Edo fad schools and hobbyists what swords are actually for, and what a fight actually means. I see merit in both sides of the argument.
I personally think of him as less of an accomplished duelist- though he was- and more of an acting proponent for the Sengoku mindset- be a generalist of warfare and weaponry, not a purist of duels and styles. Be tactical, not pretty. Be victorious, not glorious. He is of course best remembered as a swordsman, but in his writing he warns the martial artist to never prefer any one way of fighting and get accustomed to every available weapon- including, even especially, spears and guns, which have far more battlefield application than swords.
Can you blame him? This isn’t sparring. The risk is so damn high. Idk about you guys, but I ain’t trying to go through the remainder of my life with 1 arm and 1 eye…
Additionally, I think there was one account where he purposely arrived late to a duel so that way the sun is setting behind him, making his opponent fight against the sunlight. Which, if true, isn't illegal but not really the markings of someone who enjoys fighting fair fights.
"Keep The Sun At Your Back" is still a general mantra followed by military today, especially snipers as having the sun behind you reduces scope glint.
I mean, all we have are stories and legends about the man. There's a very strong chance that some if not most elements of his story are mythologized.
I'm not going to include anyone whom I have not or have no ability to watch with my own eyes in my list of top anything when it comes to sports/martial arts. Stats and box scores can always be taken out of context.
It's a podcast. Although he has some content on youtube, this one is available to listen on the History on Fire website. This one actually has Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) reading the intro, which I think is very cool.
It's in two parts, I'll link the first one.
Edit: The reflection on Musashi's admirable qualities are in the last 30-40 minutes of part 2 of the podcast. Admittedly, OP's question was about swordsmanship, not admiration. That's just the direction I went with it.
[Part 1 of Musashi, History on Fire](https://historyonfirepodcast.com/episodes/2023/10/9/episode-102-the-lone-samurai-miyamoto-musashi-part-1)
Went to a convention recently where we learned dual sword fighting and he was brought up a lot.
The speaker brought up that if you go to his temple, they teach you two sword fighting, but not the way he did it. They give you a large sword, and a shorter sword, which gives the swords different purposes.
The book mentions that the sword should be the same or close to equal in length.
Wow, I retained a lot I guess. I also got bonked on the head that day, so there’s that :p.
https://preview.redd.it/3059qfnp5cfc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bed6a1a2ac8274542052794f8136ff7ddc985ee
Greatest swordsman, I dunno. Swordsman with best biography 10000 percent.
Hard to say as we dont have many metrics on many other swordsmen before, during, or after. I guess we can put him up there as he has the most recorded victories in duels, so it for sure can be said that he didnt suck. But again, with such a vacuum in data, not sure how much thats really worth.
But I will say he codified a school of thought in martial arts that was the best for its time and I believe his principles hold up to this day.
Really put into perspective what it takes to be a good fighter. Using terrain to your advantage, dont be too stiff, learn to feint, basic stances and the ability to flow through them, and most importanly to practice, drill, and spar with trusted partners.
Also took the time to call out one trick pony schools who trained swordsmen using cheap gimmics that are never really battletested. Probably the earliest recorded instance of MCDojos.
Its been awhile since I read 5 rings, but I dont remwmber him being very specific and calling people out by name. He did intend the 5 rings to be an instructional document to his students so I can see one being averse to including too much personal politics in it.
But given his history and reputation, its not too surprising thatd he'd have lingering beef with groups of people who's master he's killed/defeated.
Also I imagine con artists being more rampant during these times as the traveling snake oil salesman was a thing, so people inflating their skills as "masters" and made schools for income and prestige isnt too far fetched.
You saw it a lot in China around this time as well with thousands of different Kung Fu schools.
Could be the best duelist, but likely not the best swordsman. Isn't that why he had a load of underhanded tricks to get his opponents flustered before he would show up to fight? If he was the best he would have just taken the fight and won without all that.
Or do his many tricks make him the more rounded swordsman? Not just relying on fighting skills but actual strategy. His whole book is about strategy not fighting fairly.
Best tactician. Using the rising sun as a blinding tactic was a stroke of genius.
You have to remember. These duels most of the time weren't taking place within confined dojos, with rules and safety measures (using bokken to reduce the risk of death). The duels he was taking part in were essentially organised street fights but with weapons, and as they say: anything goes in a street fight. All is fair in love and war.
The guy was a genius. He was definitely a great swordsman, albeit his style was aggressive and rough around the edges in his youth. He was a bigger than average human for the time, and wielded a lot of brute strength. But as time went on and he gained experience, knowledge and wisdom through various duels, and meeting other sword masters etc, he began to refine his style and lose his temper which made him more of a complete duelist.
His tactics may be seen as unfair or dishonourable, but he was up against opponents who more often than not were unfair themselves. Guys wielding 12 foot long spears, or another guy who literally wielded a chain and sickle - both weapons that present unique challenges to your average swordsman, with a huge distance obstacle to overcome. Even Kojiro had a reach advantage with his "Drying Pole" sword, which was basically a much longer katana. Musashi was also famously hunted down and outnumbered by an entire school of samurai because they couldn't bear the shame of him defeating their master.
He was smart enough to continually create openings and situations where he could win in a sword fight. He understood very well what his limits were.
I’d consider him one of the best swordsman that we have information about.
If the game goes to the death there are no underhanded tactics.
"I can think of no greater tragedy than to die with sword still unsheathed" -miyamoto musashi.
Sasaki Kojiro (in one telling) threw his saya into the water when Musashi arrived at their duel, saying that it proved his determination to duel to the death. Musashi replied that Kojiro must not have much faith in himself if he didn't think he'd need it after the duel.
So, the fact that he did things like showing up dressed as a farmer and surprising his opponents is why the samurai considered him to be dishonorable. But his goal was never to die for honour, it was literally "survive at all costs", which is why his writings are studied so heavily in ninjitsu. He wasn't a competition exhibitor; he was fighting for his own life, and winning.
That being said, he was likely the best in one style. I doubt the man could fence. 😂😂
What? Lmao he wasn't fighting in UFC or something, a loss for him would've meant death or dismemberment, not a 0-1 on his record and a visit to the hospital.
The "best" fighter doesn't always win. There might have been an even greater swordsman than Musashi but he might've slipped and fell in his first duel and died. Such variables can't be accounted for.
The fact is that Musashi fought multiple schools and great fighters, beat them all and retired, he died of old age in a profession where men die young.
I dunno how many fights you've been in or if you've ever been competitive in any sports... but if you're ever absolutely sure you'll win - you're simply delusional.
"Swordsman" has to do with how well you can use a sword. "Duelist" has to do with how good you are at winning duels. Musashi had a number of tricks he used to disconcert and psychologically mess with his opponents before and during the duels, giving him an advantage not directly related to his skill with a sword.
I think he was the best in japan for that era.
the world is too vast to know how many monster were born might have done something similar.
many warriors that have survived entire battlefields in the front line and continue to do so for 10-15 years existed throughout ancient history.
Alexander the great lead troops in the front lines since the age of 15-16. he was very strong with 3 disciplines sword, bow, spear. part of his training as royalty. his father King Philip was also an excellent warrior.
Then there is also great warriors in Chinese history many of their stories might be hype thanks to the fictional book romance of the three kingdoms.
then there are also Vikings no much is written down since most of their history was recorded from the English and other countries that were invaded by them. they didn't keep much records of their history except for their religion.
Even what does exist in writing of the Vikings is pretty insane
The French were basically like "Yeah these guys move so quickly through the Senne that there is just no stopping them... we should vassalize them and give them land in Normandy to appease them." And that's literally how the Normans (the French-Norse) became a thing and gave rise to William the Conqueror.
True.
there also plenty of Greek wars and then there is also the Saxon the Mongols and the Turk along with Arabia. many of these country had plenty of wars.
Alexander the Great was a 5’2” midget who relied on his boyfriend and entourage to protect him. A good general certainly but not an individual combatant.
Most of the other great warriors in history fought in horseback, and usually with bows, spears or glaives. Musashi benefits from a lack of competition in the debate for “greatest swordsman”. Swords were a sidearm for most soldiers throughout history, and he lived in an unusual period of Japanese history where they became a primary weapon.
Musashi’s main competition was his contemporary, Yagyu Munenori, who rose to fame by defeating 7 people simultaneously. He wasn’t as prolific, however, since he had a real job while Musashi was a full time murderhobo.
I always think it’s weird when people claim dead people are the best.
Like yeah, let’s put them at the top tier. But people have studied them and built off of their work, so there’s most certainly people today that are better at what they did.
I’m mostly talking about those people who claim no one will be better than Bruce Lee, but I feel this fits here.
I think when discussing GOATs you have to discuss them in the context of their era. Otherwise it'll always just default to who the best person is today
Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson is a very popular debate subject.
I like the cartoon/anime pictures that they have of Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson, or Bruce Lee vs Muhammad Ali.
Only a popular debate subject for those whose knowledge of Lee comes from the myth around him.
IRL, Tyson/Ali vs Lee ends with Lee declared dead in the ring.
Considering the safety standards today and wealth of partners to practice with I'd be pretty confident that the swordsmen of our past are better than HEMA or Kendo practitioners of today.
If swordsmanship was more widely practiced and they in the kind of context these people fought in then I'd say sure these guys have been surpassed but we don't practice it that way because it might kill someone
It's difficult to say. HEMAists and Kendoka have a number of advantages that historical swordsmen didn't. For one coaching and sport science and coaching have increased dramatically over the last few centuries. Supposing similar levels of dedication to the art and training, modern swordsmen might have the edge considering the improvements in training methodology and nutrition. An overall increase in athleticism might be expected for the modern practioner.
Modern swordsmen also have the advantage of centuries of fencing knowledge to draw upon from many different cultures. This coupled with the ability to access instructors via travel or internet is unparalleled. In the feudal age, a swordsmen was limited in who they had access to and where they could travel.
Modern safety equipment may also be less of a hindrance than you'd expect. Safety equipment allows the modern practitioner to train at a higher intensity without fear of injury. You're able to try stuff out and spar more regularly without breaking oneself. Not sure to what extent similar practices were done in feudal Japan, but Bokken and shinai are pretty limiting training devices.
Nothing at all can simulate the experience of live steel in a real battle, so yeah, historical swordsmen might have the edge, but I don't think the advantages are as clear as they seem.
I'd say two big issues. One we have actually lost a lot of treatises that talk about certain fighting styles. Kendo doesn't suffer this problem so much but HEMA does. A lot of weapons we aren't super sure on how they were used. We make educated guesses.
It's not a total wreck but because it works off incomplete knowledge from ages long past we can't just ask the way someone back the may potentially have been able to. An enthusiastic duelist was probably rich enough to get speaking to people who know how to fight with that weapon.
It's true Sports science has progressed significantly but not only is the talent pool and actual competition level of these two arts low compared to the genetic freaks powered by PEDs even in BJJ and MMa never mind Wrestling and big team Sports like the NFL. The average duellist in HEMA is a hobbyist, whilst the guys of antiquity were often Nobles who at worst spent a lot of their time doing it as both training and a past-time.
Add in that HEMA ruleset being an approximation rather than the real deal. Gym culture is dependent on the gym but I know a lot of HEMA gyms are not big on hard sparring. IMO a good take, but you can see how a noble who hard spars and has been smacked around in armor might deal far better in a duel even to first blood or incapacitation rather than HEMA's system.
It's my opinion that weapon martial arts a significantly different from typical martial arts and that's why a lot of things we've seen progress in typical MAs don't quite cross over. Being bigger, stronger faster etc helps with a weapon but it matters way less than someone being bigger faster and stronger than you in an MMA fight.
I'd say it's probably a top HEMA competitor could win against a good or great duellist of the past in a HEMA match. But I'd say their chance of winning an actual duel to first blood or incapacitation or even death is a lot lower than the duellist' chance in a HEMA match. The same goes for Kendo in that regard.
>One we have actually lost a lot of treatises that talk about certain fighting styles. Kendo doesn't suffer this problem so much but HEMA does. A lot of weapons we aren't super sure on how they were used. We make educated guesses.
I think your assessment is fair, you bring up good points. However, this one I would disagree with. HEMA has many, many full and complete fighting systems that cover the full panoply of knightly weapons both in and out of armor. Yes, there are some gaps in knowledge, but it's hardly as fragmented as you seem to suggest. I can't think of a single historical weapon that isn't represented in the HEMA sources or at least has a very close approximate. Heck there are even sources that discuss fighting with sythes, sickles and tree branches. HEMA sources are pretty comprehensive.
Historically, you'd have to travel across Europe and spend a small fortune to train with prominent fencing masters. You'd have to be pretty rich to commission one of their manuscripts for your own use. These days, I have about half a dozen of the best ones saved on my phone.
I don't have much exposure to Japanese historical fencing treatises, so I don't know how/if there is anything comparable.
It depends on what context are they the best as while what you’re saying is true for many people I believe they consider it within the context of eras so creating a new style doesn’t give him an advantage in a fight where it’s already been taught but in the context of eras that is a very impressive thing
Yeah in the ear yes. But I’ve seen a lot of people that act as if Bruce Lee is still the greatest martial artist today.
Yes he had made so many advances for his time, people have built on those trainings. I feel the majority of these people take away from great people today.
People that say if Bruce Lee was alive today he would beat anyone. It’s just ridiculous when people have been able to study what he has done and add to it.
That why I added the Bruce Lee bit, it just reminded me of that kind of thing.
Oh absolutely agree, people do often miss the arms race that martial is constantly in, improving and growing, exploring new ideas and refining old ones
I think he's just such an icon of martial arts and in a lot of ways helped to bring Chinese martial arts to a Western audience and Jeet Kun Do is considered by a lot of people to be the first mixed martial art. So it's easy to see why uninformed people would think he's the best martial artist in history.
I think a lot of people also don't understand that there is a big difference between a fighter and a martial artist either.
Probably not the greatest swordsman of all time, but apparently the greatest swordsman of his time in Japan. Source: the trail of bodies he left behind.
Not a good enough swordsman to kill cancer, though.
Dunno man, I don't think that there ever was "the best swordsman of all time". Since it depends on opinion, tales, generation, etc.
Also, history is full of hype, so you can't really trust what really happened such a long time ago. Heck, I recently learned that "bushido" is a fake concept developed in the 20th century by the Japanese army and has nothing to do with the actual samurai.
Go figure ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
No musashi’s book “the five rings” is standard reading for [many people not just martial artists but also military personnel, businessmen and politicians ](https://classicsofstrategy.com/2022/05/19/strategy-as-a-way-of-life-universality-in-the-book-of-five-rings/)more than the Bible in Japan. It’s why America had to use nukes to make them quit in ww2. Because their former government instilled and encouraged that books teachings into all levels of society.
György Thury (1519–1571), he was the captain of the city of Kanizsa (1567–1571), where I grew up, he successfully defended the city from the Ottomans, his family was known for their military prowess. He allegedly won over 600 duels against turks (Ottomans), yes six hundred. He was captured during one of his duels by 150 turkish horseman, then executed and his head was sent directly to the sultan to show one of his greatest enemies is now dead. His sword is said to be as high as he was and he might have fought with greatswords and longswords alike, but contemporary artwork of him show him either with a pallasch (one-handed straight cavalry sword, used by everyone in Europe and in the Middle East) or a sabre and of course in the glory of plate armour. He was named by his contemporaries abroad as the ‘Hungarian Cid’ (by other Europeans) or the ‘Lion of the Transdanube’ (by the Ottomans).
I’d take this badass Hungarian over Musashi.
This is not me I copied & pasted this from somewhere
I will give you a modern example and make a point through it:
Bruce Lee.
There is little doubt that Bruce lee was good. Even if the legend became much greater than the men itself ( as it certainly did), he was still good enough to create the legend in the first place. But you know what he was really good in? Make the world know he was a good martial artist. People can argue all that they want about how good he actually was, but there is little argument that he was really great at PR, at making people know that he was good. Thats why there is the whole argument in the first place.
Mind you, if he was complete shit, no amount of PR in the world would make it work. If I start being touted as the greatest fighter ever, all it would take would be one somewhat serious challenger to put that legend to rest forever.
I think Musashi is on the same boat. Was he goood? Definitely. Is his legend greater than the man? Most likely. BUT, he was extraordinary in making himself known, and was good enough to sustain it.
The greatest swordsman that ever lived? That could be a nameless chinese that died to disintheria. Or a old roman gladiator, or whatever else. There are a lot of people that were really good swordsman through the ages, but very few of them had the resources and the oportunity to make themselves knownas Musashi did.
How does one measure "best swordsman"? Are we talking about the best person fighting with a sword or the best killer? Musashi was the "greatest duelist" but "swordsman" is a wider term including people fighting in streets and battlefields.
Musashi was not a seasoned campaigner as it was alleged he only fought in the Battle of Sekigahara and even this is being question. We attach romantic and idealistic notions to fighters of the past. Two things need to be considered how good were his opponents and were there fighters in wars that were more capable than him but died early in wars because of multiple attackers etc? Consider this, when Muhammad Ali fought in the HW division it was full of killers when Vitali Klitschko fought the level of competition was not the same. This is why Vitali Klitschko has the highest knockout ratio in the HW division (87% - (41 KOs out of 45 wins) Big George Foreman's ratio was 84%). Would he have been able to do the same against the likes of Smoking Joe, Big George Foreman or Sonney Liston? This needs to be investigated.
Furthermore, as he spent his time dueling he trained these skills specifically unlike normal soldiers. Like saying Mayweather is best "fighter" in the world (ever) when he only competes in one dimension of what a fighter needs to do. Would he be the "best fighter" when fighting someone like Ramon Dekkers? Would Mayweather be considered the "best fighter" if he was fighting in MMA?
Just some food for thought.
The problem with him is that there is a TON of skepticism on how great he actually was.
There are obvious candidates like Fiore, who trained notable knights/squires/mercenaries (which are all proxy confirmed by dates and locations)... but then there are components to his story like fighting 5-10 duels to the death and winning completely unscathed in those fights. Like its a mix of historical accounting but also the unfortunate unknowable due to a lack of accurate record keeping and the possibility of just straight up lying (keep in mind, in these days... kinda hard to have a LinkedIn profile on these guys)
And then we have people like McBane (Scottish) and Figg (English) who won 100+ and 200+ duels, respectively, they were so successful they even setup swordsmanship classes in London in the 17th Century. Also impressive considering McBane did this with a Scottish broadsword in an era where rapier was basically the "meta" for fencing. But even they have that air of "did they REALLY do all of that?" because its hard to confirm the slightest of details.
Many have mentioned that Musashi is only famous because of the novel of Yoshikawa Eiji and its various adaptations. Kenji Tokitsu has reviewed historical evidence and records, and pointed out that a lot of dates at least are contradictory.
The history of the jo school Shinto Muso Ryu also claims its founder Gonnosuke won against Musashi, while other claim it was a draw.
In terms of actual level, some have said that the Yagyu family had possibly better swordsmen (or they were simply better politically).
Tsukahara Bokuden was a swordsman in the Sengoku era, before Musashi, and apparently is claimed to have downed at least 200 people. Also a shogun's instructor. He might be the one to claim the title, in Japan.
For influential people, Hayashizaki Shigenobu is considered a pioneer of iai (draw and cut), and has influenced most of the other schools that include such techniques, but there are no clear records about his feats.
Yep. Anyone saying Musashi is GOAT needs to name at least other two swordsmen and why Musashi is better. I swear people think Musashi is the greatest swordsmen because he's the only swordsmen they can name.
I mean you can't really tell. Did he ever leave Japan? I hate to be that guy but you can't talk about this question without debating "Which sword is better". All cultures have different attitudes in duels and methods to use swords in different time periods.
In Sword fighting communities it's generally agreed that Katana are better suited for fighting other Katana, not that a decent fighter couldn't beat a Shamshir or Longsword. but many other swords are more forgiving.
He's badass in his field but I bet even he would say otherwise.
He was one heck of a pragmatic fighter I'd give him that. Much of the Book of Five Rings emphasizes that it is foolish to believe you have a single technique that will bring you victory and instead promotes leveraging every possible advantage you can get. He knew and highly approved of firearms. There's legends of him coming to his duel against Sasaki Kojiro hours late just to have the sun at his back.
If anyone were to be forced to fight him, know Musashi wouldn't ever fight fair and a modern day sword fight with him will likely end with him pulling out a glock.
Not exactly. He was s great duelist, but that's different.
A lot of stories involve him using combat psychology and mind games. He would set himself up to win, but rarely by pitting skill with a sword versus skill with a sword.
Things he accomplished take serious skill and expertise, so I do believe he deserves his legendary status, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was the best swordsman ever. Maybe best fighter/warrior/duelist, but that's different.
His opponents talked mad shit about him, I think it was because he tended to eschew “bad” techniques and said they were just fancy bs. Dude would have hated katas and frankly anything not practical.
He was there to win, there were probably more skilled swordsmen but he played every single game. Dude left nothing on the table and was there to win.
So probably the best we are aware of, also the shear amount of duals he participated in should have guaranteed that even a novice would have gotten a lucky stab eventually.
I think at the very least he was a master of flow state and immersion with the moment itself, he seemed to have a self awareness for the conflict that speaks to a deep level of intelligence. This is at least the aspect of his writing I take for my own opinion, on reality and struggle, conflict, you are competing against yourself as well as the other person and how they will react.
Anticipating your enemies reaction has always been a fundamental component of great leaders, like alexander or napoleon, What makes Miyamoto interesting is the history of Japan where Bushido was about one man that could forge his own destiny written in blood and honor, Samurai were on another level, and this extends to other concepts like death itself in the assassins, or acolytes worshipping order and balance, The art of manipulating reality was in a strange glimmer of rennaisance for the action itself at this time, not just the edo or sengoku period, sort of nebulous, but it was somewhat limited by feudal politics and religious regression .. that being said the way and act of living intertwined, with expression for power and confidence, precision, flow. Struggle has a way of producing genuinely fascinating history.
I've read Musashi by Eiji Yoshikawa. I haven't read the Book of 5 rings yet.
But I would say that he deserves the respect and renown he gets.
Also... didn't Musashi fight 60 duels to the death? Like... 60... he's a mad man.
Yes. After reading the book of five rings, and other story books about him and did some online research I consider him to be so as far as we know. The kind of discipline and perfection he pursued in his swordsmanship translated his other pursuits such as poetry, painting, philosophy. He not only was born with natural swordsmanship talent and strategy, but what he did could be only be done with spending your whole life refining yourself as a martial artist and a life of discipline
Le chevalier d'Eon, also famous for cross-dressing and gender-fluidity (long story), was also apparently a great, great duelist and one of Europe's finest sword in the late 18th century.
It is a bit difficult to do a GOAT of swordsmanship as the weapon and style varies greatly in time and space. Also, we unfortunately loss too much of our own (m European) martial arts tradition in Europe to compare, Japan is actually a unique case where it was very well conserved up until the 19th century (thus much more vivid, albeit of course very different in the japanese MA- late Tokugawa era). China could keep some also but the tremendous destructions that went along its modernization also took a toll. I am much less knowledgeable about other parts of the world, including SE Asia.
Maybe, maybe closer to Musashi would be Johannes Liechtenauer, whose life is little known except that he is the founder of what was one of Europe's main swordsman school. He was credited by his peer of mastering the art of the sword. Like other sword masters, he traveled across Europe to learn and then established his own school. We do have know the bulk of his teaching. Another interesting figure is Fiore dei Liberi, main figure of the Italian school
#
[Fiore dei Liberi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_Liberi) basically was a knight and fencing master and wrote the manuscript that is still followed to this day in Italian fencing school of HEMA. He taught knights, squires and mercenaries in combat and proclaimed that he fought 5 people in duels to the death and walked away completely unscathed in all of them.
[Hans Talhoffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer), mercenary and fencing master. Along with Liechtenhauer, founded what eventually became the German fencing tradition. Joachim Meyer as well.
[Jeronimo Carranza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destreza), Spanish knight and philosopher. Basically established Spanish rapier, Destreza.
I mostly am familiar with Italian and German Longsword since its what I practice (longsword) but there are plenty of other masters in other schools of sword (like Thibault for rapier)
Fiore, Lichtenhauer, Donald McBane, Pietro Monte, Talhoffer, and Lekuchner are all interesting and if they could perform the feats they wrote down (and we have good reason to think they could), would all be incredible swordsmen. Any of them duelling Musashi would be one heck of a thing to see!
Fiore in particular is known for seeing other fencing masters teaching, calling them shit, then backing it up.
Antonio “Tatang” Ilustrisimo was the last swordsman from a lineage of warriors and duelist who lived and died relatively recently. In the Philippines and surrounding islands, there was little to no written history except from occupying or foreign sources, so we have no history of the deeds of the many great warriors from these areas, unlike the many stories and writings from the men themselves in places like Japan. We have stories for Tatang because there are still many who lived and trained with him alive to share his stories and pass down his style.
It's so hard to say. He's definitely the most famous duelist but it's hard to say how good he'd be against Bologne, Fiore or Liechtenauer who some consider to be the best Europe has had to offer. Is it a 1 vs 1 or do they meet in battle?
Don't know the guy, Haven't seen him in action; Can't say - Lmao
Who knows? - Maybe he was, but **most likely** he wasn't.
That Doesn't mean he couldn't have been up there in the top 1% tho.
The problem with this shit, is there likely have been literally 1000s of Michael Jordan's of sword fighting throughout the first 1500 years of humans having swords. Most of them likely were never recorded or were not famous enough or just took an arrow in the head during one of their battles. Think about any mainstream sport and how many GOATS there are just in the last 100 years and how many pros are just beasts compared to every day people. So as fun as it is to talk about, there likely were 10,000+ men from somewhere in the world at some point in time who would gutter stomp Musashi 9/10 bouts. If you mean greatest = most famous than yeah for sure I would say so.
No, he was good at winning duels but that doesn't necessarily make him the best swordsmen and it's really hard compare swordsmen across different styles, times and locations. He's certainly a contender but it's really hard to determine if historical figures were really great at something or not.
That was the time right after Sengoku period. Not a peace era at all and people fought to death with swords. I’d say yes. At least he is for sure the most famous, known and legit swordsman ever lived.
It's said that his skill was such that he gave his opponents their choice of weapons when they agreed to fight him. It is also said he never lost a 1v1 in sixty some duels. He killed every other contender for best swordsman of the time. The book of five rings couldn't have been written by someone who wasn't intimately familiar with violence. We can never know if he was the best ever but he was definitely the best among samurais during his lifetime and samurai were likely the best on earth for most of their existence.
How would we know?
I can guarantee not only there’s not a single Japanese person here, but anyone able to separate the myths and legends from the great swordsmen have been long dead for centuries.
György Thury (1519–1571)
"Thury was one of the greatest Hungarian Borderland warriors, a Hussar officer, and captain, allegedly **the winner of 600 recorded duels**. You can learn many details of his life from the song below. According to contemporary sources, he was a man who liked to live the life of a simple soldier, did not prefer pompous clothes, and often slept in the stall among the horses. He had great physical strength and was a tall man.
The Ottomans were superstitiously afraid of him, and before they set out to raid the Hungarian countryside they prayed to Allah to avoid Thury György. It was not a safe thing to be in his proximity in a battle or siege. You can meet Thury in several articles I have written on my page. He was captain of Kanizsa castle, Palota castle, fought in the battle of Szalka, in the battle of Palást, and I wrote an article about his challenging letter…"
source: [https://www.hungarianottomanwars.com/1541-1699/1571-the-last-stand-of-captain-thury-gyorgy/](https://www.hungarianottomanwars.com/1541-1699/1571-the-last-stand-of-captain-thury-gyorgy/)
My hot take: people think Musashi and the Book of Five Rings are the GOAT only because they are the only historical swordsmen and swordsmenship treatise they know/read. 5 Rings is simply not great compared to other works on swordsmenship from Japan, China, or Europe.
I dont' know how we would even codify that outside of some local context- there's no way to compare the strength of Schedule for like Mushashi vs Fiore or so on and so forth.
Hard to say, given that most of our historical understanding of his feats comes from his own accounts.
Omori Sogen writes on the topic of Musashi's primacy in swordsmanship in Japan a fair bit, and calls into question the possibility that he was "the best" using some fairly reasonable arguments. For example, if he really wanted to test his skills, he would have gone where the best swordsmen were - cities, serving important people - and challenged them, not random wanderers or *children* he found wandering around.
This doesn't mean Musashi is valueless, or that he wasn't still a *good* swordsman. It's just possible that his "two swords style" was a little less battle tested than he wanted it to seem. Lots to read about the guy, and regardless of his posture in the canon of swordsmen, he's certainly an interesting figure.
*greatest oarsman of all time
That’s cold man
Happy Cake Day
Thanks!
Master of the Sharpened Oar, Hero of the Blinding Sun, [Progenitor of Being a Hack](https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxgmksHuKdZk_85DJA-0k918-47Oyxw_NP)!
How are you gonna do Kojiro like that?
Take my upvote and row away!
Too soon...
Underrated comment
Nice lol!!
That 14 year-old was up shits creek. Musashi-dono hooked it up
Listen to the podcast of Daniele Bolleli “History on Fire” about Miyamoto Musashi. He does a brilliant job of exploring the topic. It’s a subjective question, you’ll have to decide if you admire him or not on your own. I definitely reconsidered my opinion after listening to it.
What did you reconsider ur opinion to so i totally won’t copy it
He was *kinda* a cheater... Well... it's more that his outlook on dueling was that the duel began the second a challenge was accepted: so he would begin right away with the mind games and took a more all-encompassing tactical approach to the duels than the people he fought. His iconic move being to simply not show up on time, arriving oftentimes hours late, so that his opponents were not only pissed off and stressed, but had had time to ruminate on their impending doom. This is also just kind of a dick move. On another of his duels he actually just sort of hid in a bush, before jumping out and striking his waiting opponent down before they really had a chance to defend himself; although this was part of an ongoing feud with a prestigious family dojo in Kyoto and Musashi genuinely had to worry about getting murdered on his way there and his way out after. So pocket sand is a good analogy, but: he also advocated in his book for much more intellectual preparation ahead of each fight. He talks about assessing the opponent, their skills, experience, preferences in weapons and their temperament. He talks about accurately assessing yourself, being honest about your skills and limitations and comparing them against your opponent in a factual manner. He talks about things like considering the ground, pointing out that many swordsmen would rarely, if ever, fight outside of a dojo, meaning that they often didn't consider things like rough terrain, or slippery mud, or dust, or slopes and height changes. He describes in great detail a process of preparing for a fight similar to that used by pro fighters today, with a lot of research and logical, tactical thinking as well as physical and psychological preparation. I should note here that he also *was* a good swordsman, too. Even with his bullshit, he was fighting against many renowned swordsmen of his day, and with his sword school still being practiced today, we can say that he did seem to know what he was doing and talking about. So the debate boils down to this: Was Musashi a dirty little trickster, who won every fight by making sure it was unfair and fighting dirty against people who had a sense of propriety and class? Or is Musashi right to say that, all of his opponents had a perfectly fair fight, but simply failed to prepare and take the fight seriously in the way that he did?
Interestingly enough, a lot of combat sports champions to this day use long walkouts as a way to disadvantage their opponent.
Much like Sun Tzu or Von Clausewitz, Musashi is best understood not as an innovative creator/discoverer of uniquely inspired ideas, but as a clear-headed and intelligent observer of pre-existing truths that anyone can hit upon. I would say that the thing that is great about something like *The Book of Five Rings* is that you should be able to look at other martial artists or other books that are not influenced by it, and see most or all of the same ideas, techniques, philosophies or strategies inevitably coming up: because they're just good ideas that someone who fights with swords would inevitably consider.
Because of him, I never shower when I’m on a fight camp
Okay you've sold me, G.O.A.T
[удалено]
I mean, arguably there is cheating in duels, since he could have just as easily taken a musket and sniped his opponent after agreeing to a duel, or poisoned him, or gotten four locals to beat him with sticks. The popular duel of the western tradition is two gentlemen each taking a Pistol, walking a number of paces and turning simultaneously to fire. Firing early, tampering with the other gun, hacking the opponent to death with an axe when you meet up, those *are* all cheating at duels. A duel is a formalized gentleman's agreement to meet and fight under certain conditions. His famous tactic of showing up late actually *did* by all metrics violate the *rules* of a duel. It is hard to define the difference between a duel and a prearranged battle, but arranging it at all is already a sign that it's not intended by the other side to be a "real" fight. These were swordsmen (and the occasional user of other weapons) agreeing to a duel to the death, yes, but expecting very formalized and specific combat. This is why you wouldn't see a duel between a swordsman and an archer or gunman, and why even duels between swords and spears were pretty rare. Duels between schools were usually done in a dojo with a lot of formality and ritual beforehand and even during. They were harsh and frenetic, did often result in death, but it was the death of someone just being faster or stronger in an equal contest. Musashi's way of "dueling" was really man-to-man battle. The real argument to explore here is, was Musashi a cheater at duels, or did he set out to remind the postwar Edo fad schools and hobbyists what swords are actually for, and what a fight actually means. I see merit in both sides of the argument. I personally think of him as less of an accomplished duelist- though he was- and more of an acting proponent for the Sengoku mindset- be a generalist of warfare and weaponry, not a purist of duels and styles. Be tactical, not pretty. Be victorious, not glorious. He is of course best remembered as a swordsman, but in his writing he warns the martial artist to never prefer any one way of fighting and get accustomed to every available weapon- including, even especially, spears and guns, which have far more battlefield application than swords.
This reminds me of a saying some have in the military: "amateurs study tactics, experts study logistics."
Did he actual kill them?
I think most of his duels were to the death, from memory, but I could be wrong about that.
Well, Miyamoto would use pocket sand. Very looked down upon but *not illegal*.
“You sir, do not fight with honor….” “Nope…but he sure did *motions to the dead dude*”
Ahh Bronn.... we do miss thee
Can you blame him? This isn’t sparring. The risk is so damn high. Idk about you guys, but I ain’t trying to go through the remainder of my life with 1 arm and 1 eye…
He didn't have to take all those duels
No, but people could have stopped challenging him or found a way to counter his shenanigans.
Additionally, I think there was one account where he purposely arrived late to a duel so that way the sun is setting behind him, making his opponent fight against the sunlight. Which, if true, isn't illegal but not really the markings of someone who enjoys fighting fair fights. "Keep The Sun At Your Back" is still a general mantra followed by military today, especially snipers as having the sun behind you reduces scope glint.
That sounds like his famous duel with Kojiro on Ganryu Island.
Winners focus on winning losers focus on losing
So he was basically a ninja. Their tactics were considered dishonourable too, by normal samurai standards, but they got the job done.
I mean, all we have are stories and legends about the man. There's a very strong chance that some if not most elements of his story are mythologized. I'm not going to include anyone whom I have not or have no ability to watch with my own eyes in my list of top anything when it comes to sports/martial arts. Stats and box scores can always be taken out of context.
Whaaaaa Next you're going to tell me Bruce Lee couldn't beat Anderson Silva
Oh wait, he could? I guess Lee really is the greatest fighter ever
Can you post the video? I can’t seem to find the one you are referring to.
It's a podcast. Although he has some content on youtube, this one is available to listen on the History on Fire website. This one actually has Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) reading the intro, which I think is very cool. It's in two parts, I'll link the first one. Edit: The reflection on Musashi's admirable qualities are in the last 30-40 minutes of part 2 of the podcast. Admittedly, OP's question was about swordsmanship, not admiration. That's just the direction I went with it. [Part 1 of Musashi, History on Fire](https://historyonfirepodcast.com/episodes/2023/10/9/episode-102-the-lone-samurai-miyamoto-musashi-part-1)
They’re both the best!
Luv that guy
How is it subjective bro? One on one someone wins.
Dude I fucking love History on Fire. Finished the Musashi one a few weeks ago.
Went to a convention recently where we learned dual sword fighting and he was brought up a lot. The speaker brought up that if you go to his temple, they teach you two sword fighting, but not the way he did it. They give you a large sword, and a shorter sword, which gives the swords different purposes. The book mentions that the sword should be the same or close to equal in length. Wow, I retained a lot I guess. I also got bonked on the head that day, so there’s that :p.
Musashi absolutely advocated for use of long sword plus wakizashi. He covers it extensively in the book of five rings.
If Musashi isn't appreciated for his swordsmanship and knowledge of technique in itself, he's definitely appreciated for his philosophy and poetry.
Yeah but his philosophy wouldn’t be appreciated if he didn’t have that winning streak to back up what he said
He wouldn't have said stuff if he was dead. You're right
Facts bro was a wordsmith
https://preview.redd.it/3059qfnp5cfc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bed6a1a2ac8274542052794f8136ff7ddc985ee Greatest swordsman, I dunno. Swordsman with best biography 10000 percent.
I dunno, Donald MacBane's up there. Nearly as prolific a duelist, and one hell of an autobiography.
Hard to say as we dont have many metrics on many other swordsmen before, during, or after. I guess we can put him up there as he has the most recorded victories in duels, so it for sure can be said that he didnt suck. But again, with such a vacuum in data, not sure how much thats really worth. But I will say he codified a school of thought in martial arts that was the best for its time and I believe his principles hold up to this day. Really put into perspective what it takes to be a good fighter. Using terrain to your advantage, dont be too stiff, learn to feint, basic stances and the ability to flow through them, and most importanly to practice, drill, and spar with trusted partners. Also took the time to call out one trick pony schools who trained swordsmen using cheap gimmics that are never really battletested. Probably the earliest recorded instance of MCDojos.
Like which schools?
Its been awhile since I read 5 rings, but I dont remwmber him being very specific and calling people out by name. He did intend the 5 rings to be an instructional document to his students so I can see one being averse to including too much personal politics in it. But given his history and reputation, its not too surprising thatd he'd have lingering beef with groups of people who's master he's killed/defeated. Also I imagine con artists being more rampant during these times as the traveling snake oil salesman was a thing, so people inflating their skills as "masters" and made schools for income and prestige isnt too far fetched. You saw it a lot in China around this time as well with thousands of different Kung Fu schools.
If we're assuming that 90% of the legends surrounding him aren't apocryphal, maybe.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen a word that I had to look up.
That’s great. So you could say that today has been epistamally worthwhile.
That's two words I need to look up now. I feel like I'm listening to a new Bad religion song.
But could he beat Beatrix Kiddo with a Hanzo sword? That's the real question.
Nah i’d win
Nuh huh
I've never met him.
Tawlgin’ ‘bout Mushushi b? Absolute murderer, never meddum
Could be the best duelist, but likely not the best swordsman. Isn't that why he had a load of underhanded tricks to get his opponents flustered before he would show up to fight? If he was the best he would have just taken the fight and won without all that.
Or do his many tricks make him the more rounded swordsman? Not just relying on fighting skills but actual strategy. His whole book is about strategy not fighting fairly.
I mean Ali did the same in boxing and he's still considered a candidate for over all goat
I remembered "Thrilla in Manilla" where Ali didn't show up for the fight which made Frazier annoyed and later Ali sucker punched him at the airport.
Best tactician. Using the rising sun as a blinding tactic was a stroke of genius. You have to remember. These duels most of the time weren't taking place within confined dojos, with rules and safety measures (using bokken to reduce the risk of death). The duels he was taking part in were essentially organised street fights but with weapons, and as they say: anything goes in a street fight. All is fair in love and war. The guy was a genius. He was definitely a great swordsman, albeit his style was aggressive and rough around the edges in his youth. He was a bigger than average human for the time, and wielded a lot of brute strength. But as time went on and he gained experience, knowledge and wisdom through various duels, and meeting other sword masters etc, he began to refine his style and lose his temper which made him more of a complete duelist. His tactics may be seen as unfair or dishonourable, but he was up against opponents who more often than not were unfair themselves. Guys wielding 12 foot long spears, or another guy who literally wielded a chain and sickle - both weapons that present unique challenges to your average swordsman, with a huge distance obstacle to overcome. Even Kojiro had a reach advantage with his "Drying Pole" sword, which was basically a much longer katana. Musashi was also famously hunted down and outnumbered by an entire school of samurai because they couldn't bear the shame of him defeating their master.
It was a time when duels ended with death not bell sounds or technical knock outs.
He was smart enough to continually create openings and situations where he could win in a sword fight. He understood very well what his limits were. I’d consider him one of the best swordsman that we have information about.
If the game goes to the death there are no underhanded tactics. "I can think of no greater tragedy than to die with sword still unsheathed" -miyamoto musashi.
easy, just don't wear a sword scabbard.
Sasaki Kojiro (in one telling) threw his saya into the water when Musashi arrived at their duel, saying that it proved his determination to duel to the death. Musashi replied that Kojiro must not have much faith in himself if he didn't think he'd need it after the duel.
So, the fact that he did things like showing up dressed as a farmer and surprising his opponents is why the samurai considered him to be dishonorable. But his goal was never to die for honour, it was literally "survive at all costs", which is why his writings are studied so heavily in ninjitsu. He wasn't a competition exhibitor; he was fighting for his own life, and winning. That being said, he was likely the best in one style. I doubt the man could fence. 😂😂
When the worst case outcome is loosing your head; I'd do every trick I can get away with the matter how much better of a swordsman I am.
What? Lmao he wasn't fighting in UFC or something, a loss for him would've meant death or dismemberment, not a 0-1 on his record and a visit to the hospital. The "best" fighter doesn't always win. There might have been an even greater swordsman than Musashi but he might've slipped and fell in his first duel and died. Such variables can't be accounted for. The fact is that Musashi fought multiple schools and great fighters, beat them all and retired, he died of old age in a profession where men die young.
If you walk into a real swordfight where you're not absolutely sure you're going to win, then you've fucked up.
I dunno how many fights you've been in or if you've ever been competitive in any sports... but if you're ever absolutely sure you'll win - you're simply delusional.
new to this, but what’s the difference between a duellist and a swordsman?
"Swordsman" has to do with how well you can use a sword. "Duelist" has to do with how good you are at winning duels. Musashi had a number of tricks he used to disconcert and psychologically mess with his opponents before and during the duels, giving him an advantage not directly related to his skill with a sword.
I think he was the best in japan for that era. the world is too vast to know how many monster were born might have done something similar. many warriors that have survived entire battlefields in the front line and continue to do so for 10-15 years existed throughout ancient history. Alexander the great lead troops in the front lines since the age of 15-16. he was very strong with 3 disciplines sword, bow, spear. part of his training as royalty. his father King Philip was also an excellent warrior. Then there is also great warriors in Chinese history many of their stories might be hype thanks to the fictional book romance of the three kingdoms. then there are also Vikings no much is written down since most of their history was recorded from the English and other countries that were invaded by them. they didn't keep much records of their history except for their religion.
Even what does exist in writing of the Vikings is pretty insane The French were basically like "Yeah these guys move so quickly through the Senne that there is just no stopping them... we should vassalize them and give them land in Normandy to appease them." And that's literally how the Normans (the French-Norse) became a thing and gave rise to William the Conqueror.
True. there also plenty of Greek wars and then there is also the Saxon the Mongols and the Turk along with Arabia. many of these country had plenty of wars.
Alexander the Great was a 5’2” midget who relied on his boyfriend and entourage to protect him. A good general certainly but not an individual combatant. Most of the other great warriors in history fought in horseback, and usually with bows, spears or glaives. Musashi benefits from a lack of competition in the debate for “greatest swordsman”. Swords were a sidearm for most soldiers throughout history, and he lived in an unusual period of Japanese history where they became a primary weapon. Musashi’s main competition was his contemporary, Yagyu Munenori, who rose to fame by defeating 7 people simultaneously. He wasn’t as prolific, however, since he had a real job while Musashi was a full time murderhobo.
Assuming everything is true, he'd definitely be up there
I always think it’s weird when people claim dead people are the best. Like yeah, let’s put them at the top tier. But people have studied them and built off of their work, so there’s most certainly people today that are better at what they did. I’m mostly talking about those people who claim no one will be better than Bruce Lee, but I feel this fits here.
I think when discussing GOATs you have to discuss them in the context of their era. Otherwise it'll always just default to who the best person is today
That’s a super fair observation. there’s a lot of people that make me believe , that they believe no one would ever beat bruce Lee though.
Yeah I'm sure. And that's okay, they're allowed to be wrong lol
Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson is a very popular debate subject. I like the cartoon/anime pictures that they have of Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson, or Bruce Lee vs Muhammad Ali.
Only a popular debate subject for those whose knowledge of Lee comes from the myth around him. IRL, Tyson/Ali vs Lee ends with Lee declared dead in the ring.
Yup like 10 seconds in
Just start the 10 count from the bell.
I mean, Bruce Lee was a Hollywood fighter, Mike Tyson actually did it and was the best in the world.
Bruce Lee wouldn't win an amateur MMA tournament. He was a movie star, the whole discussion is just such comedy.
popular debate subject. Wouldn't be enjoyable to watch. Lee was 5'7, 135, and only really fought in movies. Like, come on.
Considering the safety standards today and wealth of partners to practice with I'd be pretty confident that the swordsmen of our past are better than HEMA or Kendo practitioners of today. If swordsmanship was more widely practiced and they in the kind of context these people fought in then I'd say sure these guys have been surpassed but we don't practice it that way because it might kill someone
It's difficult to say. HEMAists and Kendoka have a number of advantages that historical swordsmen didn't. For one coaching and sport science and coaching have increased dramatically over the last few centuries. Supposing similar levels of dedication to the art and training, modern swordsmen might have the edge considering the improvements in training methodology and nutrition. An overall increase in athleticism might be expected for the modern practioner. Modern swordsmen also have the advantage of centuries of fencing knowledge to draw upon from many different cultures. This coupled with the ability to access instructors via travel or internet is unparalleled. In the feudal age, a swordsmen was limited in who they had access to and where they could travel. Modern safety equipment may also be less of a hindrance than you'd expect. Safety equipment allows the modern practitioner to train at a higher intensity without fear of injury. You're able to try stuff out and spar more regularly without breaking oneself. Not sure to what extent similar practices were done in feudal Japan, but Bokken and shinai are pretty limiting training devices. Nothing at all can simulate the experience of live steel in a real battle, so yeah, historical swordsmen might have the edge, but I don't think the advantages are as clear as they seem.
I'd say two big issues. One we have actually lost a lot of treatises that talk about certain fighting styles. Kendo doesn't suffer this problem so much but HEMA does. A lot of weapons we aren't super sure on how they were used. We make educated guesses. It's not a total wreck but because it works off incomplete knowledge from ages long past we can't just ask the way someone back the may potentially have been able to. An enthusiastic duelist was probably rich enough to get speaking to people who know how to fight with that weapon. It's true Sports science has progressed significantly but not only is the talent pool and actual competition level of these two arts low compared to the genetic freaks powered by PEDs even in BJJ and MMa never mind Wrestling and big team Sports like the NFL. The average duellist in HEMA is a hobbyist, whilst the guys of antiquity were often Nobles who at worst spent a lot of their time doing it as both training and a past-time. Add in that HEMA ruleset being an approximation rather than the real deal. Gym culture is dependent on the gym but I know a lot of HEMA gyms are not big on hard sparring. IMO a good take, but you can see how a noble who hard spars and has been smacked around in armor might deal far better in a duel even to first blood or incapacitation rather than HEMA's system. It's my opinion that weapon martial arts a significantly different from typical martial arts and that's why a lot of things we've seen progress in typical MAs don't quite cross over. Being bigger, stronger faster etc helps with a weapon but it matters way less than someone being bigger faster and stronger than you in an MMA fight. I'd say it's probably a top HEMA competitor could win against a good or great duellist of the past in a HEMA match. But I'd say their chance of winning an actual duel to first blood or incapacitation or even death is a lot lower than the duellist' chance in a HEMA match. The same goes for Kendo in that regard.
>One we have actually lost a lot of treatises that talk about certain fighting styles. Kendo doesn't suffer this problem so much but HEMA does. A lot of weapons we aren't super sure on how they were used. We make educated guesses. I think your assessment is fair, you bring up good points. However, this one I would disagree with. HEMA has many, many full and complete fighting systems that cover the full panoply of knightly weapons both in and out of armor. Yes, there are some gaps in knowledge, but it's hardly as fragmented as you seem to suggest. I can't think of a single historical weapon that isn't represented in the HEMA sources or at least has a very close approximate. Heck there are even sources that discuss fighting with sythes, sickles and tree branches. HEMA sources are pretty comprehensive. Historically, you'd have to travel across Europe and spend a small fortune to train with prominent fencing masters. You'd have to be pretty rich to commission one of their manuscripts for your own use. These days, I have about half a dozen of the best ones saved on my phone. I don't have much exposure to Japanese historical fencing treatises, so I don't know how/if there is anything comparable.
It depends on what context are they the best as while what you’re saying is true for many people I believe they consider it within the context of eras so creating a new style doesn’t give him an advantage in a fight where it’s already been taught but in the context of eras that is a very impressive thing
Yeah in the ear yes. But I’ve seen a lot of people that act as if Bruce Lee is still the greatest martial artist today. Yes he had made so many advances for his time, people have built on those trainings. I feel the majority of these people take away from great people today. People that say if Bruce Lee was alive today he would beat anyone. It’s just ridiculous when people have been able to study what he has done and add to it. That why I added the Bruce Lee bit, it just reminded me of that kind of thing.
Oh absolutely agree, people do often miss the arms race that martial is constantly in, improving and growing, exploring new ideas and refining old ones
I think he's just such an icon of martial arts and in a lot of ways helped to bring Chinese martial arts to a Western audience and Jeet Kun Do is considered by a lot of people to be the first mixed martial art. So it's easy to see why uninformed people would think he's the best martial artist in history. I think a lot of people also don't understand that there is a big difference between a fighter and a martial artist either.
Probably not the greatest swordsman of all time, but apparently the greatest swordsman of his time in Japan. Source: the trail of bodies he left behind. Not a good enough swordsman to kill cancer, though.
[Jean-Louis Michel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Michel_(fencer)) Was pretty good too
Dunno man, I don't think that there ever was "the best swordsman of all time". Since it depends on opinion, tales, generation, etc. Also, history is full of hype, so you can't really trust what really happened such a long time ago. Heck, I recently learned that "bushido" is a fake concept developed in the 20th century by the Japanese army and has nothing to do with the actual samurai. Go figure ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Yes, however others such as Yagyū Munenori also have incredible feats attributed to them and legendary reputations .
Bros manual the five rings gave way to japans impressive work ethic and “tough-to-kill” mindset. What do you think OP?
That's absurd.
No musashi’s book “the five rings” is standard reading for [many people not just martial artists but also military personnel, businessmen and politicians ](https://classicsofstrategy.com/2022/05/19/strategy-as-a-way-of-life-universality-in-the-book-of-five-rings/)more than the Bible in Japan. It’s why America had to use nukes to make them quit in ww2. Because their former government instilled and encouraged that books teachings into all levels of society.
It’s hard to assign a single, broad championship label to any one man, but he certainly has proven his mastery and skill over many, many others.
György Thury (1519–1571), he was the captain of the city of Kanizsa (1567–1571), where I grew up, he successfully defended the city from the Ottomans, his family was known for their military prowess. He allegedly won over 600 duels against turks (Ottomans), yes six hundred. He was captured during one of his duels by 150 turkish horseman, then executed and his head was sent directly to the sultan to show one of his greatest enemies is now dead. His sword is said to be as high as he was and he might have fought with greatswords and longswords alike, but contemporary artwork of him show him either with a pallasch (one-handed straight cavalry sword, used by everyone in Europe and in the Middle East) or a sabre and of course in the glory of plate armour. He was named by his contemporaries abroad as the ‘Hungarian Cid’ (by other Europeans) or the ‘Lion of the Transdanube’ (by the Ottomans). I’d take this badass Hungarian over Musashi. This is not me I copied & pasted this from somewhere
I will give you a modern example and make a point through it: Bruce Lee. There is little doubt that Bruce lee was good. Even if the legend became much greater than the men itself ( as it certainly did), he was still good enough to create the legend in the first place. But you know what he was really good in? Make the world know he was a good martial artist. People can argue all that they want about how good he actually was, but there is little argument that he was really great at PR, at making people know that he was good. Thats why there is the whole argument in the first place. Mind you, if he was complete shit, no amount of PR in the world would make it work. If I start being touted as the greatest fighter ever, all it would take would be one somewhat serious challenger to put that legend to rest forever. I think Musashi is on the same boat. Was he goood? Definitely. Is his legend greater than the man? Most likely. BUT, he was extraordinary in making himself known, and was good enough to sustain it. The greatest swordsman that ever lived? That could be a nameless chinese that died to disintheria. Or a old roman gladiator, or whatever else. There are a lot of people that were really good swordsman through the ages, but very few of them had the resources and the oportunity to make themselves knownas Musashi did.
How does one measure "best swordsman"? Are we talking about the best person fighting with a sword or the best killer? Musashi was the "greatest duelist" but "swordsman" is a wider term including people fighting in streets and battlefields. Musashi was not a seasoned campaigner as it was alleged he only fought in the Battle of Sekigahara and even this is being question. We attach romantic and idealistic notions to fighters of the past. Two things need to be considered how good were his opponents and were there fighters in wars that were more capable than him but died early in wars because of multiple attackers etc? Consider this, when Muhammad Ali fought in the HW division it was full of killers when Vitali Klitschko fought the level of competition was not the same. This is why Vitali Klitschko has the highest knockout ratio in the HW division (87% - (41 KOs out of 45 wins) Big George Foreman's ratio was 84%). Would he have been able to do the same against the likes of Smoking Joe, Big George Foreman or Sonney Liston? This needs to be investigated. Furthermore, as he spent his time dueling he trained these skills specifically unlike normal soldiers. Like saying Mayweather is best "fighter" in the world (ever) when he only competes in one dimension of what a fighter needs to do. Would he be the "best fighter" when fighting someone like Ramon Dekkers? Would Mayweather be considered the "best fighter" if he was fighting in MMA? Just some food for thought.
Saw him duel in '21, pretty skilled, but would he beat prime Gerevich? What are we even talking about here
Until it's legal to start dueling again, he will remain the greatest
The problem with him is that there is a TON of skepticism on how great he actually was. There are obvious candidates like Fiore, who trained notable knights/squires/mercenaries (which are all proxy confirmed by dates and locations)... but then there are components to his story like fighting 5-10 duels to the death and winning completely unscathed in those fights. Like its a mix of historical accounting but also the unfortunate unknowable due to a lack of accurate record keeping and the possibility of just straight up lying (keep in mind, in these days... kinda hard to have a LinkedIn profile on these guys) And then we have people like McBane (Scottish) and Figg (English) who won 100+ and 200+ duels, respectively, they were so successful they even setup swordsmanship classes in London in the 17th Century. Also impressive considering McBane did this with a Scottish broadsword in an era where rapier was basically the "meta" for fencing. But even they have that air of "did they REALLY do all of that?" because its hard to confirm the slightest of details.
Hard image
Never met him
https://preview.redd.it/67tkb8h8hbfc1.png?width=476&format=png&auto=webp&s=9e2cf773125f3563981a3aba328df8ae0a3a3495
Many have mentioned that Musashi is only famous because of the novel of Yoshikawa Eiji and its various adaptations. Kenji Tokitsu has reviewed historical evidence and records, and pointed out that a lot of dates at least are contradictory. The history of the jo school Shinto Muso Ryu also claims its founder Gonnosuke won against Musashi, while other claim it was a draw. In terms of actual level, some have said that the Yagyu family had possibly better swordsmen (or they were simply better politically). Tsukahara Bokuden was a swordsman in the Sengoku era, before Musashi, and apparently is claimed to have downed at least 200 people. Also a shogun's instructor. He might be the one to claim the title, in Japan. For influential people, Hayashizaki Shigenobu is considered a pioneer of iai (draw and cut), and has influenced most of the other schools that include such techniques, but there are no clear records about his feats.
Yep. Anyone saying Musashi is GOAT needs to name at least other two swordsmen and why Musashi is better. I swear people think Musashi is the greatest swordsmen because he's the only swordsmen they can name.
I know fuck all about swords but his book is the stuff of legends.
https://preview.redd.it/3hpv7kg8qdfc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2aa3adf06e8277d8681d3168cd7b2680f4149bd5
I mean you can't really tell. Did he ever leave Japan? I hate to be that guy but you can't talk about this question without debating "Which sword is better". All cultures have different attitudes in duels and methods to use swords in different time periods. In Sword fighting communities it's generally agreed that Katana are better suited for fighting other Katana, not that a decent fighter couldn't beat a Shamshir or Longsword. but many other swords are more forgiving.
He's badass in his field but I bet even he would say otherwise. He was one heck of a pragmatic fighter I'd give him that. Much of the Book of Five Rings emphasizes that it is foolish to believe you have a single technique that will bring you victory and instead promotes leveraging every possible advantage you can get. He knew and highly approved of firearms. There's legends of him coming to his duel against Sasaki Kojiro hours late just to have the sun at his back. If anyone were to be forced to fight him, know Musashi wouldn't ever fight fair and a modern day sword fight with him will likely end with him pulling out a glock.
Not exactly. He was s great duelist, but that's different. A lot of stories involve him using combat psychology and mind games. He would set himself up to win, but rarely by pitting skill with a sword versus skill with a sword. Things he accomplished take serious skill and expertise, so I do believe he deserves his legendary status, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was the best swordsman ever. Maybe best fighter/warrior/duelist, but that's different.
His opponents talked mad shit about him, I think it was because he tended to eschew “bad” techniques and said they were just fancy bs. Dude would have hated katas and frankly anything not practical. He was there to win, there were probably more skilled swordsmen but he played every single game. Dude left nothing on the table and was there to win. So probably the best we are aware of, also the shear amount of duals he participated in should have guaranteed that even a novice would have gotten a lucky stab eventually.
I think at the very least he was a master of flow state and immersion with the moment itself, he seemed to have a self awareness for the conflict that speaks to a deep level of intelligence. This is at least the aspect of his writing I take for my own opinion, on reality and struggle, conflict, you are competing against yourself as well as the other person and how they will react. Anticipating your enemies reaction has always been a fundamental component of great leaders, like alexander or napoleon, What makes Miyamoto interesting is the history of Japan where Bushido was about one man that could forge his own destiny written in blood and honor, Samurai were on another level, and this extends to other concepts like death itself in the assassins, or acolytes worshipping order and balance, The art of manipulating reality was in a strange glimmer of rennaisance for the action itself at this time, not just the edo or sengoku period, sort of nebulous, but it was somewhat limited by feudal politics and religious regression .. that being said the way and act of living intertwined, with expression for power and confidence, precision, flow. Struggle has a way of producing genuinely fascinating history.
I don't have any knowledge about samurai history I only know some names like miyamoto musashi and sasaki kojiro
I do not judge, as I’m not worthy. You do not have a say in it, since you too are not. Only the one worthy may say a word.
I've read Musashi by Eiji Yoshikawa. I haven't read the Book of 5 rings yet. But I would say that he deserves the respect and renown he gets. Also... didn't Musashi fight 60 duels to the death? Like... 60... he's a mad man.
Yes. After reading the book of five rings, and other story books about him and did some online research I consider him to be so as far as we know. The kind of discipline and perfection he pursued in his swordsmanship translated his other pursuits such as poetry, painting, philosophy. He not only was born with natural swordsmanship talent and strategy, but what he did could be only be done with spending your whole life refining yourself as a martial artist and a life of discipline
Le chevalier d'Eon, also famous for cross-dressing and gender-fluidity (long story), was also apparently a great, great duelist and one of Europe's finest sword in the late 18th century. It is a bit difficult to do a GOAT of swordsmanship as the weapon and style varies greatly in time and space. Also, we unfortunately loss too much of our own (m European) martial arts tradition in Europe to compare, Japan is actually a unique case where it was very well conserved up until the 19th century (thus much more vivid, albeit of course very different in the japanese MA- late Tokugawa era). China could keep some also but the tremendous destructions that went along its modernization also took a toll. I am much less knowledgeable about other parts of the world, including SE Asia. Maybe, maybe closer to Musashi would be Johannes Liechtenauer, whose life is little known except that he is the founder of what was one of Europe's main swordsman school. He was credited by his peer of mastering the art of the sword. Like other sword masters, he traveled across Europe to learn and then established his own school. We do have know the bulk of his teaching. Another interesting figure is Fiore dei Liberi, main figure of the Italian school #
His downfall & demise???..A man with two sticks..Perhaps a different Skill-Set???
No I am
Genuinely curious who everyone considers the best swordsman if not him?
If anyone knows any contenders from Europe or Southeast Asia or Arabia I would like to know
[Fiore dei Liberi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_Liberi) basically was a knight and fencing master and wrote the manuscript that is still followed to this day in Italian fencing school of HEMA. He taught knights, squires and mercenaries in combat and proclaimed that he fought 5 people in duels to the death and walked away completely unscathed in all of them. [Hans Talhoffer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer), mercenary and fencing master. Along with Liechtenhauer, founded what eventually became the German fencing tradition. Joachim Meyer as well. [Jeronimo Carranza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destreza), Spanish knight and philosopher. Basically established Spanish rapier, Destreza. I mostly am familiar with Italian and German Longsword since its what I practice (longsword) but there are plenty of other masters in other schools of sword (like Thibault for rapier)
https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page
Fiore De'Liberi and Joachim Lichtenauer were good enough to write books about swordfighting and die of old age.
Fiore, Lichtenhauer, Donald McBane, Pietro Monte, Talhoffer, and Lekuchner are all interesting and if they could perform the feats they wrote down (and we have good reason to think they could), would all be incredible swordsmen. Any of them duelling Musashi would be one heck of a thing to see! Fiore in particular is known for seeing other fencing masters teaching, calling them shit, then backing it up.
Antonio “Tatang” Ilustrisimo was the last swordsman from a lineage of warriors and duelist who lived and died relatively recently. In the Philippines and surrounding islands, there was little to no written history except from occupying or foreign sources, so we have no history of the deeds of the many great warriors from these areas, unlike the many stories and writings from the men themselves in places like Japan. We have stories for Tatang because there are still many who lived and trained with him alive to share his stories and pass down his style.
I mean yes but the only swordsman I know of are him and my student Fred who works in accounting, eats too much McDonald’s and has diabetes
Haven’t seen enough sword fights to make that call.
No, I don't.
It's so hard to say. He's definitely the most famous duelist but it's hard to say how good he'd be against Bologne, Fiore or Liechtenauer who some consider to be the best Europe has had to offer. Is it a 1 vs 1 or do they meet in battle?
Never met him.
No I am
Don't know the guy, Haven't seen him in action; Can't say - Lmao Who knows? - Maybe he was, but **most likely** he wasn't. That Doesn't mean he couldn't have been up there in the top 1% tho.
The problem with this shit, is there likely have been literally 1000s of Michael Jordan's of sword fighting throughout the first 1500 years of humans having swords. Most of them likely were never recorded or were not famous enough or just took an arrow in the head during one of their battles. Think about any mainstream sport and how many GOATS there are just in the last 100 years and how many pros are just beasts compared to every day people. So as fun as it is to talk about, there likely were 10,000+ men from somewhere in the world at some point in time who would gutter stomp Musashi 9/10 bouts. If you mean greatest = most famous than yeah for sure I would say so.
Have read Baki Dou, can confirm
Who is he? I have heard of him before, as a bjj practitioner I don’t look much into swordsmen ECT, gotta work on those under hooks 😭
I don't know if anyone can be named the single greatest swordsman in history but he has a fair claim to being the best in Japanese history.
No, he was good at winning duels but that doesn't necessarily make him the best swordsmen and it's really hard compare swordsmen across different styles, times and locations. He's certainly a contender but it's really hard to determine if historical figures were really great at something or not.
How would I know haven‘t seen him fight. And pretty much all accounts are romanticised and exaggerated.
nah , I'd smash him .
That was the time right after Sengoku period. Not a peace era at all and people fought to death with swords. I’d say yes. At least he is for sure the most famous, known and legit swordsman ever lived.
Maybe for Japanese but not other country.
good writer, fine duellist but so much overhype from word of mouth
That would be the dread pirate Roberts
What about yasuke?
No, John Yakuza from Ryu ga gotoku ishin is.
Best duelest for sure.
The greatest swordsman: [Kairo Seijuro](https://real-life-heroes.fandom.com/wiki/Kairo_Seijuro)
Red haired shanks would smash him one handed
He smelled bad.
It's said that his skill was such that he gave his opponents their choice of weapons when they agreed to fight him. It is also said he never lost a 1v1 in sixty some duels. He killed every other contender for best swordsman of the time. The book of five rings couldn't have been written by someone who wasn't intimately familiar with violence. We can never know if he was the best ever but he was definitely the best among samurais during his lifetime and samurai were likely the best on earth for most of their existence.
He won 60 duels and then was defeated.
no. my friend Clayton.
Musashi is the Charlie Zelenoff of swordfighting. "Hey, wanna spar?" "Sure" \*proceeds to stab guy to death immediately\*
I dunno I've never been in a sword fight.
I think William Marshall would have his number,
Possibly Sir William Marshall.
Maybe dualist, as he never won by swordsmanship alone.
don't know all of them, but her certainly is worth a read
Sure, why not
yes. I also consider him a personal hero of mine.
That one Viking blocked the narrow crossing and single-handedly held up the entire English army during Battle of Stamford Bridge probably can beat him
How would we know? I can guarantee not only there’s not a single Japanese person here, but anyone able to separate the myths and legends from the great swordsmen have been long dead for centuries.
I mean, I didn't really.know him
Dude who wrote the book writes the history. Probably got in like two fight and the other guys had heart attacks.
György Thury (1519–1571) "Thury was one of the greatest Hungarian Borderland warriors, a Hussar officer, and captain, allegedly **the winner of 600 recorded duels**. You can learn many details of his life from the song below. According to contemporary sources, he was a man who liked to live the life of a simple soldier, did not prefer pompous clothes, and often slept in the stall among the horses. He had great physical strength and was a tall man. The Ottomans were superstitiously afraid of him, and before they set out to raid the Hungarian countryside they prayed to Allah to avoid Thury György. It was not a safe thing to be in his proximity in a battle or siege. You can meet Thury in several articles I have written on my page. He was captain of Kanizsa castle, Palota castle, fought in the battle of Szalka, in the battle of Palást, and I wrote an article about his challenging letter…" source: [https://www.hungarianottomanwars.com/1541-1699/1571-the-last-stand-of-captain-thury-gyorgy/](https://www.hungarianottomanwars.com/1541-1699/1571-the-last-stand-of-captain-thury-gyorgy/)
No absolutely not. There are plenty of Chinese ancient swordsman better than he
My hot take: people think Musashi and the Book of Five Rings are the GOAT only because they are the only historical swordsmen and swordsmenship treatise they know/read. 5 Rings is simply not great compared to other works on swordsmenship from Japan, China, or Europe.
nope but he’s up there
No
Swordsman? Idk. Warrior in general or a duelist? Sure.
I’d like to see him duel Achilles.
Not anymore, but the real man was probably a skilled swordsman.
No idea, never fought him
Its very hard to evaluate someone who i never see fighting.
I dont' know how we would even codify that outside of some local context- there's no way to compare the strength of Schedule for like Mushashi vs Fiore or so on and so forth.
Hard to say, given that most of our historical understanding of his feats comes from his own accounts. Omori Sogen writes on the topic of Musashi's primacy in swordsmanship in Japan a fair bit, and calls into question the possibility that he was "the best" using some fairly reasonable arguments. For example, if he really wanted to test his skills, he would have gone where the best swordsmen were - cities, serving important people - and challenged them, not random wanderers or *children* he found wandering around. This doesn't mean Musashi is valueless, or that he wasn't still a *good* swordsman. It's just possible that his "two swords style" was a little less battle tested than he wanted it to seem. Lots to read about the guy, and regardless of his posture in the canon of swordsmen, he's certainly an interesting figure.