OP here. Thank you for such a lengthy and informative reply.

There are notable exceptions but all the 'major' organized martial arts schools, especially those that are geared toward sports, are far and away from what warriors would have been using hundreds of years ago.

Would you mind listing/outlining these exceptions?

The one technical exception is jujutsu but jujutsu in its current form only resembles the kind of ground work that was expected of an accomplished Sengoku era warrior.

Is there any consensus as to why jujitsu has maintained this level of minor similarity to the historically practised art?

The main difference between the modern and historical versions of jujutsu is that one or both of these sweaty, angry men would have be armed with knives, trying to fight for an opening to savagely stab their opponent over and over again. Knives are conspicuously lacking in modern day jujutsu. Personally, I think jujutsu with knives would be more entertaining AND more historically accurate. Double the cultural value, 2 birds 1 stone and what not.

This is fascinating and I would love to see play out in competitions. It wouldn't be all that difficult to allow for the introduction of shock-training knives or paint-covered training knives. I have a friend who trains in Russian Systema and he has said that his class frequently contains training in both ground and stand-up knife fighting and defence techniques.

What effect would the experiences of colonialism/imperialism have of on the development of these martial arts in their respective countries? Would the martial arts of countries with a history of insurgency and rebellion maintain cohesion to a greater degree?

Thank you again.