Jukendo, Bayonet Fighting, and Combative Measures |
||
Jukendo is the art of Japanese bayonet fighting, i.e., in modern practice, using a wooden rifle (mokujo) with a dull, blunted mock bayonet as part of the barrel. Its roots go back to Juken Kakuto (bayonet combat, also referred to by some as Juken Jutsu, the art of the bayonet) in Japan's Meiji period. In Juken Kakuto, attacks consisted of slashing and thrusting with a live blade, and using the butt of the rifle to strike. Eventually, the famous Toyama Military Academy was established (1873), a school for the training of Japanese military personnel. The style of Toyama-ryu was formally founded in 1925, emphasizing sword and bayonet techniques. At the conclusion of World War II, militaristic fighting arts in Japan were banned by the U.S. forces. As a result, Juken Kakuto/Juken Jutsu evolved into Jukendo, a sport version of the art, in much the same way Kenjutsu evolved into Kendo. In 1955, the National Jukendo Association was formed in Japan. Utilizing the mokujo mentioned above, the system consists of solo kata for individual practice, as well as two-person kata and competitions. In the competitions, Kendo-style armor is worn, and referees award points. The only form of attack permitted in Jukendo is the thrust, with target areas the heart, the throat, the left side, and the back of the left wrist. While the Japanese military is taught a combat-oriented style of bayonet fighting, Jukendo is practiced throughout the country. Unlike many other martial arts, Jukendo is not found in the elementary schools, since there is still a negative association to the pre- and World War II teaching of military arts to children. Bayonet fighting here refers to the live blade attached to the end of a rifle, with the techniques to be discussed referring specifically to those utilized by the U.S. Army and Marines. While not given the same emphasis today as in times past, bayonet fighting is still a vital component of combative measures. When training with the bayonet, the Soldier/Marine is taught to hold the rifle firmly, but with muscles relaxed rather than tensed. Attacks are not limited to thrusts, but to a variety of types from many angles. These angles are the same as those of kuzushi (off-balancing) in Taiho-Jutsu and JuJutsu. It is not just the upper body generating strength for the strikes, but the entire motion of the whole body. The Soldier/Marine is taught to aggressively keep the body moving out of the line of possible attack and when ready to attack to do so with "relentless assault". If the enemy fails to present an opening, the bayonet fighter is to create one by parrying the enemy's weapon and driving the blade or rifle butt into the enemy with force. This is done with a "low and aggressive growl", serving a similar purpose to the kiai in traditional martial arts. Primary areas to attack are the face, throat, chest, abdomen, and groin. Obviously, other areas are fair game if an opening is seen. |
 |
In discussing attacks, there are four types: THRUST, BUTT STRIKE, SLASH, and SMASH. The object of the Thrust is to disable or capture the enemy by thrusting the bayonet to a vulnerable part of the enemy's body. The Butt Strike's objective is to disable or capture the enemy via a forceful blow to the enemy's body or weapon with the rifle butt. The Slash has the same objective, by means of cutting the enemy with the edge of the blade of the bayonet. Again with the same objective, the Smash accomplishes this by smashing the rifle butt to a vulnerable area of the body. This is usually done as a follow-up technique. Combinations are to be used whenever possible. How is the art of Jukendo to be evaluated for combative measures, and compared to both Juken Jutsu and U.S. bayonet fighting systems? It is obvious that the paucity of techniques limits Jukendo's effectiveness in the battlefield. In my correspondence with a noted Jukendo Godan, he tells me that testing for advanced rank does not consist of learning additional techniques, but in elevating the level of one's skill in demonstrating those techniques of the curriculum already learned. Even the combat style of Juken Jutsu does not, in his opinion, compare to the standards and training of U.S. Soldiers and Marines. In the U.S. military, the wide variety of strikes employed, often accompanied by taisabaki-type movements, seems to make it a highly effective system. There are some, as is always the case, who find areas to critique. One common example is stating that there is too much emphasis in the full-body thrust, which forces the bayonet into the enemy too deeply, thus taking away valuable time to withdraw the weapon and go after or defend against others on the battlefield. Another criticism heard is that the techniques are ineffective when confronted by one with true skills in other blade and staff arts. While the first statement can be argued, the second has no logic to it. To assume that an enemy on the battlefield would have the advanced skills of a martial arts practitioner in blade or staff arts defies the odds. From a realistic perspective of conditions in the true combat arena, it seems the fixed bayonet fighting techniques of the U.S. Army and Marines prove to be a varied, flexible, and effective system. Its place in combative measures is secure. |
