Would bayonets really be accurate historically?

**O'Hea** · May 10, 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by DannyTh3Man

Jukendo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%ABkend%C5%8D

Nobody's disputing that the Japanese used bayonets, it's a question of how early and how often. Bayonets were not widely used in Europe until the middle 1600's, well into the Edo period when they were unlikely to be imported. Jukendo is only officially attested during the Meiji period, meaning we know it existed after the Boshin War but not necessarily during.

**BullGod** · May 10, 2012, 05:07 PM

Maybe there are some more detailed records, memoirs, or diaries depicting Boshin War battles available somewhere else than wikipedia? I know Jules Brunet wrote memoirs after his return to France, but I'm not sure if they're available in any other language than french.

As for the pictures of the period mentioned in OP, here's a fragment from wikipedia page about Battle of Hakodate I believe to be of some importance:

Although the Battle of Hakodate involved some of the most modern armament of the era (steam warships, and even an ironclad warship, barely invented 10 years earlier with the world's first seagoing ironclad, the French La Gloire), Gatling guns, Armstrong cannons, modern uniforms and fighting methods, most of the later Japanese depictions of the battle during the few years after the Meiji Restoration offer an anachronistic representation of traditional samurai fighting with their swords, possibly in an attempt to romanticize the conflict, or to minimize the amount of modernization already achieved during the Bakumatsu period (1853-1868).

**DannyTh3Man** · May 12, 2012, 11:27 AM

"Way of the bayonet." While bayonet techniques were developed early as the1600's with the introduction of rifles into Japan, in the Meiji era, a standard from of bayonet fighting was developed, Juken Jitsu. It was taught in a special Tokyo military training school (Toyama Gakko). Following World War II (1945) the study was prohibited by the Allied occupation, only to be revived in a new form, Jukendo. As a "do" form (meaning the "way" or "path") Jukendo encompassed goals of spiritual and mental development as a byproduct of disciplined practice. The discipline is practiced by Japanese self-defense forces (armed forces) as well as other non-military clubs. Jukendo is practiced by kata and two man drills. A competitive format was also adopted to test skill levels. Contestants wear protective gear while rifles and bayonets are simulated by wooden counterparts (mokuju). Techniques include proper posture, thrusting and blocking aimed at three principal areas which simulate a kill: heart, throat and lower left side. Kata is sometimes used to practice technique.

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/...?id=59#jukendo

**O'Hea** · May 12, 2012, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by DannyTh3Man

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/...?id=59#jukendo

Cool story, but that info is almost identical to the information in the wikipedia article you linked earlier. It really doesn't contribute much to what's being discussed.

**rekishiotaku** · May 20, 2012, 07:29 PM

I will have to look into laws of the Edo period. But this was a time when peasants weren't even supposed to wear certain colors or patterns, a stance on the "decadence" of the Azuchi-momoyama period.
There were instances of the imperial crest showing up without approval, such as on the tsuka of swords, like that of Shinsengumi member Soji Okita, (which is also a bit similar to the symbol of Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryuu) symbol Although that chrysanthemum has far more than 16 pedals. The number of pedals could also be used as a way to say one was not disobeying the law. The law in the constitution was placed there for a few reasons, one it defined what the crest would be, Emperor Go-touba choose a 17 pedal design several centuries ago, this reaffirmed the 16 pedals. Moreover the Meiji government constitutes a new government, therefore they have to write laws, they don't simply re-use laws that Tokugawa or local daimyo used. That is to say if they import laws from the previous era, they are re-written and stamped under the seal of the new government. Like when the Post-War constitution was written they didn't have to leave out laws and liberties spelled out in the Meiji constitution. Also the law you are referring to outlawed mons that looked too similar to the imperial crest.

Also keep in mind that swordsmiths weren't free agents. The Tokugawa government would have been more interested in what, how many and to whom for, they were manufacturing swords. Where-as they probably might not to extremely interested in Buddhist temples or peasant made sweets.

But my main points are/weren't that the seal did not appear on weapons prior to the Meiji period. Its simply that is was not common, and often not without reason. A sword maker didn't put the mark just because it was cool, the markings are symbols. And again there is typically a motivation or reason for stamping something on a weapon. And almost certainty they did not request it be marked by European companies, and also its unlikely that they were offered by the Europeans as a marketing tool.

Now did people not follow the laws strictly? Sure, in the Edo period there were laws forbidding commoners from wearing swords, but it still happened, particularity among wealthy merchants. Therefore can we say anytime we see a depiction of a man wearing swords in an ukiyo-e that he is just as likely a commoner than a samurai? If we see a weapon with a crest on it, should we assume there was no reason to it?

But even if the law was not readily enforced, and the further one gets away from Kyoto and Edo the more possible it becomes, I'm just trying to find the most likely explanation.

**american samurai** · May 21, 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by rekishiotaku

Now did people not follow the laws strictly? Sure, in the Edo period there were laws forbidding commoners from wearing swords, but it still happened, particularity among wealthy merchants.

Actually the laws only referred to certain sized swords and the wearing of daisho, commoners were "allowed" to wear a certain sized sword from what I understand, most just chose not to unless traveling from what I have read. Here is a link to an interesting essay on this very subject by S. Alexander Takeuchi, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology, University of North Alabama. http://www.una.edu/faculty/takeuchi/...onin_sword.htm

As for the possibility of samurai weapons that were ordered from western arms dealers being marked or not, its just as easy to believe that with an order of hundreds or thousands of items they were marked by the manufacturer. Weapons made for other countries by arms manufacturers were factory marked why not weapons made for the pro Imperial forces. When a factory is making multiple orders of identical weapons wouldnt it be likely that the individual orders were marked in some way to keep track of a shipment?

**rekishiotaku** · May 21, 2012, 03:08 PM

Its possible, but unlikely. I can't say authoritatively since I haven't come across anything saying Western manufacturers did not stamp a chrysanthemum on orders going to factions that were pro-Imperialist (and I believe each clan was ordering for their own clan not for the greater imperial cause) and one might think that if that happened it might be mentioned somewhere since, to me at least, it would have been a pretty interesting fact. But we all know that during the Meiji restoration weapons would have been stamped. Moreover we can assume weapons used prior to the war were not simply thrown out, its not like the government had to now order all new weapons to replace the old so that they could be stamped by a Western factory. So it seems more likely that the stamp was put on after the fact.
While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I would say in such cases its best to go with the most likely conclusion. That is to say that if arms owned by the Meiji government were stamped in 1870, then its probable that arms that entered into Japan in 1860 that were then handed over would have been stamped later on.
I've given up on my search to find mentioning of arms being stamped in Europe prior to 1870, but I'm all ears if anyone finds it, and I would be grateful.

**sambrorai** · June 11, 2012, 07:09 PM

I think it's because CA was being a tad lazy but in a way where it's acceptable. after all, putting bayonets in the game mean that they have to re-do all the animations (both using CGI and motion capture) to display the fighting animation between what say fighting against a yari, or another katana, and not to mention on mounted units.... though i think it would be nice if they recycled animations from previous total war games like NTW or ETW, or even use some of the yari animations