Natori teaches that rope binding (kyosoku no waza) is fundamentally different from holding a prisoner with guards or force. A person held only by external force requires constant attention — one guard's lapse allows escape, one moment of distraction creates opportunity. But a person bound cannot escape regardless of guard attention. The rope transforms the problem of restraint from continuous active management to permanent passive control. This distinction matters enormously in military contexts where guards are scarce and attention is divided.1
The doctrine appears simple on its surface: tie the prisoner so he cannot move. But Natori teaches that effective binding is an intricate technical problem. Too loose and the prisoner escapes. Too tight and hands die, then the prisoner cannot be managed (a prisoner with dead hands is unpredictable). Applied wrong and the prisoner can still leverage against guards or break free. Natori treats binding as a discipline requiring training and judgment.
Circulation management. Natori's fundamental principle: the binding must prevent circulation without cutting it off entirely. This creates a specific technical window. The rope must be tight enough that blood cannot freely return from the hands (causing them to swell and become useless), but not so tight that the rope cuts into skin and creates visible injury marks.
Why does visible injury matter? Because a prisoner with visible torture marks — deep rope burns, cut fingers, bleeding — becomes evidence of abuse. If the prisoner escapes or is released, those marks are witness testimony against the warrior. They damage reputation and create legal liability (even in Natori's era, excessive cruelty had consequences). Strategic restraint is invisible restraint.
Natori teaches three categories of binding for different situations:
Full immobilization (hands behind back, legs bound separately or hobbled, torso secured to a fixed point or to the guard) — for dangerous prisoners being transported long distances or held overnight. This binding assumes the prisoner will be unwatched at times and must be unable to escape or cause harm even without active supervision.
Arm restriction only (hands bound behind back or at sides, legs free to walk) — for prisoners being escorted over short distances or prisoners who have agreed to surrender but still require control. This binding assumes the prisoner will be moving with guards and the primary threat is arm-based violence.
Temporary restraint (wrists bound with a specifically designed quick-release knot) — for situations where the binding may need immediate release (medical emergency, sudden tactical shift, verification of surrender). This binding trades some security for the ability to release in seconds if circumstances change.
The subtlety: these are not arbitrary categories. Each addresses a different tactical problem. A commander choosing the wrong category for the situation creates vulnerability.
Three-point binding doctrine. Natori emphasizes that binding only the wrists is insufficient. A prisoner with only wrists bound can still use his elbows to strike an opponent, use his torso to knock over guards, or leverage his arms against his body to break the binding through sheer strength and flexibility.
Effective binding requires three control points: wrists (to prevent hand use), elbows (to prevent arm leverage and striking), and torso (to prevent rolling, turning sharply, or using core strength to generate escape force). The three points together eliminate nearly all movement options.
Natori's specific binding sequence: wrists are bound first with the yotsu musubinawa (four-point knot), which is faster to apply and harder to untie than common square knots. Then the elbows are bound together behind the back, pulling the shoulder blades together and severely restricting arm range. Finally, the torso is secured — either to a fixed object (post, tree, wagon) or to the guard himself through a rope looped around the prisoner's waist and the guard's body.
Knot selection and placement. Natori teaches that not all knots are equally effective. The yotsu musubinawa is designed specifically so that the working end goes through multiple loops — even if a prisoner can reach one knot, he cannot reach the others without untying the first. The knots must also be positioned where the prisoner cannot easily see them (this is psychological — a prisoner who cannot see the knots cannot evaluate how tight they are or where they might be vulnerable).
Critically: knots must be placed where the prisoner cannot reach them with his teeth. This sounds like a small detail, but Natori emphasizes it repeatedly. A bound prisoner will attempt to gnaw through rope or untie knots with his mouth. If the knots are positioned inches away from his mouth, he can work on them over hours. If they are positioned behind his back and wrists, he cannot reach them.
Application technique. Natori teaches that rope binding must be applied while the prisoner is controlled through leverage, not just held. The warrior applies binding while keeping the prisoner off-balance — a prisoner who is thinking about not falling cannot simultaneously resist the binding process. The rope is applied in sequence, and each application forces the prisoner into a position that makes the next binding easier to apply.
For example: start by controlling the prisoner's arms through a joint lock (pulling arms up behind the back), then apply wrist binding while he is already in that position. Once wrists are bound, the prisoner can no longer use arms for balance or resistance. Then move to elbow binding. Each step reduces the prisoner's options and makes him more compliant.
Rope binding appears throughout Natori's writings on siege management, prisoner transport, and the logistics of subduing multiple opponents in battles where surrender occurs.1 The tactical advantage is clear: once bound, a single guard can manage multiple prisoners because none can move effectively.
In siege contexts, captured defenders often surrender after a defensive line breaks. A single warrior might find himself facing 10-20 men who have dropped weapons and are offering no further resistance. Rope binding means he can secure all of them with minimal help. Without binding, he would need 10-20 guards to watch them, or risk them re-arming.
Natori also teaches that rope binding has profound psychological weight. A warrior who sees another warrior bound — not bruised, not hurt, just completely immobilized — understands the restraint is real and permanent. This prevents the false hope that enables resistance. A prisoner in full immobilization knows escape is impossible. This knowledge produces compliance.
This is subtly different from brutal restraint. A prisoner who is tortured or beaten might try to escape out of desperation or rage. A prisoner who is competently bound understands the situation is hopeless and submission is the only option.
Natori lived during a period when prisoner-taking was common, ransoms were the primary source of warfare revenue, and the security of prisoners directly determined the security of ransom money.1 A commander whose prisoners escaped would lose ransom money and reputation. The confidence his allies had in him would evaporate.
This created a specific logistical problem: how do you move 50 prisoners across hostile territory with minimal guards? Natori's answer: rope binding. A warrior with good binding technique can manage 5-10 prisoners safely, move them quietly, and prevent escapes even if guards are exhausted or distracted.
Poor binding killed careers. A famous example (implicit in Natori's writings) is the commander whose prisoners were freed by accomplices during a ransom negotiation. The rope bindings were not tight enough. The prisoners worked through the night and escaped just before the money was to be handed over. The commander was disgraced — he could not be trusted with prisoners or ransoms again.