I've actually challenged you to open a separate thread, where the historical evidence will be laid out. You chickened out. Also, you went silent in the thread after being beaten to a pulp by a LOT more people than just me, producing clear evidence as to why spears were considered to be the superior weapons in the field of battle.
1) I didn't make a new thread - and I'm not going to make a new thread - to indulge you. There isn't a good reason to make a new thread. Everything you want to say, you can say in the thread you've already polluted.
You "challenging" me to make a new thread is another tactics to manipulate yourself and others (who already happen to agree with your nonsense) into believing you've "won" -- if I won't do it, I've "chickened out." Instead of what actually happened: I refuse to create a platform for you to spread your misinformation, and then be blamed by a mod when the discussion inevitably turns sour. Which is probably why you don't just make this thread yourself, instead of insisting that I do it.
2) "Going silent" is just more rhetoric. I responded with more than an entire page worth of replies. I stopped when I realized that I was doing all the disproving, research, and "heavy lifting" in the discussion, and you were doing all the claiming and ad hominem attacking.
When I disproved point A, you moved to point B. When I disproved B, you moved to C. And by the time I disproved C, a page or two passed and you just reverted back to point A like nothing ever happened. I'm not one to argue with people who intentionally adopt the memory retention of goldfish, so I decided to keep whatever dignity I had left and refused to continue to cast my pearls before swine.
You've already made a clown out of yourself in the "spear thread," which I can simply link, but I won't, out of pity.
You rarely provide links, because when you do, a disinterested party can see how you cherry-picked information and ignored what didn't support your agenda. Like right now.
Only battlefield experience means something. Otherwise, if samurais self-practiced in dojos were effective in battles, then they would have been the mainstay of armies. History shows opposite. Sengoku wars grew in numbers fielded in battle, and the mainstay of armies were the trusty, loyal ashigarus.
This is such absolute drivel, I'm even surprised you'd write this.
If only battlefield experience means anything, practicing for combat means nothing. Instructors who didn't personally fight in a real battle should all be ignored. Tactics and strategy should never evolve because anything new wasn't tested and proven effective.
You realize that saying Samurai weren't "effective in battle" is like saying knights and other elite troops were worthless because otherwise, they'd be the mainstay of armies. Derp. I mean do you actually realize how stupid that statement sounds?
That's sort of like saying the Marines aren't actually "effective in battle" otherwise they'd be the core of the US army. And all marines that haven't yet fought in actual combat are "worthless."
In before you scramble half-baked, thoughtless excuses like "warfare has changed." Red herrings only fool those who refuse to think enough about the subject matter and course of discussion.
Everything about Musashi, is self claimed. Again, I dare you. Open a new thread.
Here is a golden example of what I was referring to above. How many times have I proven the above statement that you made to be false? And how many times have you ignored all the evidence I gathered that proved you wrong, and said the same thing over and over again. Its like you believe that repeating the same lie over and over will make it true. If I take the bait and spend time and energy proving your nonsense wrong - again - you'll just ignore all my effort and repeat the same lie tomorrow. And if I don't take the bait,you'll say I "chickened out."
Medieval Japan. Ancient Japan ended around 10th century. This carelessness in wording, I take to be a clear sign of laymen.
Your strength has always lain with your rhetorical acrobatics, and ad hominem attacks that you disguise as neutral observations. Everyone reading knows exactly what I mean - I'm not going to double check everything I write to defend myself against bad faith actors. If you're so eager to miss what I'm pointing at by focusing on my finger, so be it.
Please tell me you're not dreaming of the "mighty Takeda cavalry" and that bullshi*. The Japanese, did not even have the word "cavalry," before the 19th century, until "The Father of Japan's Cavalry," Akiyama Yoshifuru learned about it from his correspondence with western military academies.
No, I'm pointing out that you claimed cavalry did not exist as a military unit in Japan. Which is simply an incorrect - not to mention a shockingly ignorant - statement to make. If you thought you weren't a layman, think again.
Which means it's utterly useless for field wars.
Remember George Silver? I do. You seem(ed?) to respect his opinion.
Why is it he mentions sword and dagger use in the context of open warfare on a battlefield?
Or do you not remember when I literally quoted that entire passage in the spear thread you refused to link?