Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

I was planning to take aiki jitsu and was scrolling around the net. I found out there were two specific kinds of aiki jitsu that I was interested. I wanted to know what are the differences between the two and which art is more dangeruous? Like, which art will be more use for special forces or useful. I know if they are really phscially as other arts. Thank you :confused:

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

Head over to e-budo.com and do some searches. This has been covered over there.

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

Esp. http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...rashi%22+amdur

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

Aikijitsu technique's are fine in a non battle field confrontation...In war and all the insanity that exist's there you should look at something like Silat,knife control and use etc...good luck,check these out...
http://web.telia.com/~u87133252/GetTough.pdf
http://www.goldenlightstudios.com/gl...3=video_mintro

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

I find it interesting that someone would say this on an Aikido board. Where do you think Aikikjujitsu came from?

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

It is interesting isn't it... Aikijitsu used on Japan's battlefield's of old would not work well on today's modern
battle field,some technique's might...but the enemy is not going to be wielding the same weapon's have the same attitude etc.
if you take a look at Daitoryu and equate it to a desert/urban combat environment..w/modern combat gear,vest's,weapon's etc.
I don't think it will be effective...the WW2 combat techniques would get the job done... check out the post on Muslim MA.it's insiteful..
Thank's for your input... :D

Re: Daito Ryu Aiki jitsu Vs Kaze Arashi Ryu
 

I might be wrong, but I learnt, that Daito Ryu came from battle field fighting, but was refined over centuries to the needs of top aristocrate families, i.e. ambush, in-house self-defense. Still there are many similarities, but also significant differences. On the battlefield, you might face a chaotic mess of hundreds of combattants, but usually you are prepared for fighting.

"Domestic" usually stick to 1to1 up to small group fightings, but very often without time for preparation. Unarmed self defence in this environment does not only mean lost or damaged weapon, but also situations, where weapons are not allowed (official visits) or just not near enough (bathroom, bedroom, etc.).

With my limited military background, it seem though as if this type of fighting matches much more modern battlefield situations, than traditional clashes of complete armies, which still happened in WW I and II, Korea and Vietnam, but rather as exception. The last battle of this type I heard about, was in the Iran-Iraq war.

But there are good reasons, why any type Budo might not be the best preparation for modern forces.

Budo is designed for life-time training, and not to prepare legions of young men and women to fight and hopefully survive in battles, where they are sent to, without understanding why and what they are fighting for. In former wars many armies used extra machine gun units, placed in the second line to shoot deserteurs. Now some use video games to make them fight without thinking.

While these are massive critics about doubtful wars, I do not pretend to have a solution, as no army can allow their soldiers to leave/quit/ignore orders, when they have doubts, fear or any other good or bad reason.


Best regards Dirk