Musashi novel: is this one-vs-many fight believable?

[SDWakefield]

The novel is controversial as history, I know, but history aside, I was impressed with the novel's "spreading pine" fight scene and wondering how believable it was.

The author puts a lot of effort into constantly describing Musashi's state of mind, the tactics he's thinking about, the surrounding terrain and obstacles and how he uses them to his advantage, his mobility, his depleting energy level (exhaustion), his manipulation of the shape of the formation of men attacking him (e.g. he "attacks the corners" of their formation and keeps moving).

Every physical, mental, and tactical dimension is explained to such a level of detail, it makes a layman like me say, "Wow, this actually could have happened," so I'm interested in ARMA's opinion.

If you haven't read it, the fight happens in the "Stray Geese" chapter, pages 521-531. You can preview most of it in Google Books. Link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FWNor84X_vQC

(Scroll down to the table of contents in the preview, and click the "Stray Geese" chapter. If it's grayed out, search the book for "spreading pine", and you'll get hits in pages 521-531 where it happens.)

[Stacy Clifford]

If you have room to run, then staying on the edges of the enemy group and picking them off one at a time on the corners is a classic strategy we've taught in ARMA for a long time. Essentially you really do have to herd your enemies like sheep, even when you're the one running away. It is very tiring, however, and requires a high degree of awareness of your surroundings to survive. I'm not surprised Musashi knew it; any top flight seasoned warrior from any part of the world probably did. Even knowing what to do, pulling it off is still an incredible feat of skill. Here is a good story of another swordsman who made the best of even fewer options:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/digby.html

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Even knowing what to do, pulling it off is still an incredible feat of skill.

Not so incredible, perhaps. I'm not a very good or experienced swordsman but I've done a fair bit of free-play against three or four opponents simultaneously (both free-for-all and three/four vs.one) with the single sword and I often find it somewhat easier to face multiple assailants rather than a single highly-skilled opponent as long as the people trying to gang up on me hadn't had much prior practice in coordinating their attacks. Each opponent tends to hang back and wait for somebody else to distract me, but in fact this allows me to take to the offensive and shape the fight the way I want it. There's nothing special or secret about it--all it takes is a modicum of skill and tactical common sense, along with a goodly dose of confidence.

Of course, the tale would have been very different if my opponents had known how to coordinate their movements and strikes . . . .

[Stacy Clifford]

Lafayette,

Against three or four relatively inexperienced fighters, I'd have to agree with you. My perspective is somewhat colored by the fact that I've usually done one-on-many fighting against other ARMA members who coordinate well enough to make it difficult. Against ten or more, however, as in Musashi's case, you're going to have to run, think and fight tired before it's over if they don't retreat after you kill the first few, and the fatigue factor definitely makes for a greater test of skill. It is even more important to avoid injury than usual just to be able to keep moving. There are plenty of other factors to consider, of course, but since most masters' advice when outnumbered seems to be "run away if you can," defeating multiple determined opponents is an impressive feat in any case.

[SDWakefield]

Ahh, I had assumed that single opponents hanging back and waiting for someone else to distract the hero was a Hollywood cliche. Now it appears to be a plausible mark of inexperienced mobs. Interesting. If they were experienced in coordinating their strikes, I suppose you would have to retreat, unless you could lead them to a narrow area forcing single combat.

Very interesting, thank you!

[s_taillebois]

Ahh, I had assumed that single opponents hanging back and waiting for someone else to distract the hero was a Hollywood cliche. Now it appears to be a plausible mark of inexperienced mobs. Interesting. If they were experienced in coordinating their strikes, I suppose you would have to retreat, unless you could lead them to a narrow area forcing single combat.

Very interesting, thank you!

Depends a lot on circumstance. For example the Viking who held Stamford bridge probably was confronted with several opponents at one time, albiet from one main direction. Fatigue and fixation probably was what led him to not look to the other avenues of attack by his Saxon opponents. Who likely did not wait for one at a time attacks.
Dafyd Gann (don't spell well in Welsh) was confronted by numerous French opponents when trying to stop them from getting to King Henry. And since this was in melee in front of the English lines it was likely the French were coming in from various angles and they were coming in simultaneously (as the aristocrat leading them was trying for the last push as it were), Gann and other henches had to cover these while trying to clear a path to and away for Henry. (Gann apparently may have used a war hammer)
Fatigue we can recreate in sparring however one aspect which can not be effectively recreated is the effects of initially non lethal wounds-as M. Clifford noted avoiding injury in these contexts would be as important as afflicting injury. Gann for example was holding more than his own until someone got a axe/poleaxe into his arm. Soon after that point he was fading and his own people got him off the field where he soon died.
As M. Clifford noted a good fighter can herd his opponents and wear some down by mobility and etc. But historically since many of these men were lifetime killers multiple opponents would look to a reverse effect and getting in effective wounding likely take a skilled opponent down by cumulative effect of blood, muscle, loss rather than necessarily by one decisive single blow. This is likely why men at arms etc seemed to have fought in teams or in pairs as it would minimize that tactic.