Dual wielding combat

Users who are viewing this thread

The truth is, if history were real, it would be legendary weapons skills that neither the common people nor the pampered courtiers could see for themselves.
This requires a lot of stamina and superior weapon skill. It's impossible to fight anywhere all the time, and MB has no stamina, so it's very op in this game
It is extremely rare and modern people without highly skilled. Just like the bow made in modern times by imitating the bow making technology of ancient England, only professional hercules can pull the bow string. DW it is suicide for ordinary people. Because it is ordinary people, it is noob in legend's eyes.
It's one word: hard core.
Such an army certainly does not exist, but individuals certainly do.
 
Last edited:
Why do you insist upon being a clown?

You've asspulled so many times on this forum in the past month, I'm actually a little embarrassed for you.

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.

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. This isn't a thread about your Musash-fanboism, so I'm going to keep the responses very short, and only this once. You want refutation? Open a separate thread about Musashi.


1. Musashi is respected because of his widely accepted participation in over 60 deathmatches.

SELF CLAIMED TO HAVE. Not even the "Ganryushima incident" is verified -- not to mention, not even the name of the person Musashi supposedly fought in that last duel, is certain.

You're intentionally not including that information, and also trying to imply that only "battlefield" experience means something -- even though the other weaponmaster you've quoted in the past had zero battlefield experience! You know how to twist facts and lie by omission, but the people who haven't experienced your hypocritical tactics in the past won't understand how manipulative you're choosing to be.

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.


2. You got that idea on this forum. Literally any one of us can google him and see your claim isn't true. Again with the spreading of misinformation that you hope people will take at face value, instead of doing a little research.

Where do you think those "Google" information in English (or western language) gets their info from?

Everything about Musashi, is self claimed. Again, I dare you. Open a new thread.


3. Right, because in ancient Japan

Medieval Japan. Ancient Japan ended around 10th century. This carelessness in wording, I take to be a clear sign of laymen.


...they recovered corpses on the battlefield and took note of how they died. I'd like you to provide one source for this claim, so we can all have a good laugh. You've made absolutely bogus claims in the past, but this could be a brand new level of unintentionally hilarious/sad.

Suzuki Masaya (鈴木眞哉)'s studies into kanjyou and gunchyuujyo of the era. Not gonna waste my time explaining this basic shi* so look it up if you don't know what those are.

His works such as:

"戦国合戦の虚実―日曜歴史家への誘い"
(https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4062683008/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17)

or

"謎とき日本合戦史" (2001)


...compile of list of deaths and it's causes of the era, as follows. Again, I'm not gonna translate that for you. Read it, and then try refute it.

f0049186_4d99f5dc06f6f.jpg



4. Here is an easy one:

Saying "the Japanese did not have cavalry as a military unit" betrays your utter lack of knowledge and peddling of personal views as historical fact that are a hallmark of your forum posting habits.

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.


All that being said, dual wielding took a level of skill that was uncommon IRL

Which means it's utterly useless for field wars.


...but when used correctly it was very strong in single combat. George Silver mentioned the use of sword + dagger many times, and there was use of katana + wakizashi in Japan since they existed side-by-side.

Dueling is not field battle. And wakizashi is a sidearm to the sidearm. Duel wielding is not a thing.


There was even a school of combat in Japan that sought to use two katanas as adeptly as a katana + waz.
Anyway, cool idea for the game but I don't see it happening, unfortunately.

That's nittenichiryu. Look it up and see what their standing is on in modern kendo.

It's a joke.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Did you really just humor us all by linking to a
Korean
tabletop gamer's
private blog
as supporting evidence for your tirade?

Yes!



Yes you ****ing did it!

And to quote your tabletop gaming guru:
"It was pointed out that Kenji Sato was the period when the sword and the spear coexisted as the main weapon , but in reality it was the era of the bow and the sword."

Even the guy you're ****ing borrowing from is omitting your precious spear in favor of the bow in his blog post. Quick, post another Big Red to distract everyone!

I mean every single time I do any kind of research into your sources, I'm pleasantly surprised but this...
This is just precious to me.
Thank you.

Inb4 "Masaya Suzuki" even though the chart only tracks one ****ing skirmish. Unless you think that only ~1500 people died in that entire, and I quote, "era" that you think the chart is tracking lol
----------------------------------------

I think I've illustrated why arguing with you and your cronies is a waste of time. Sure, you'll say I "chickened out" but that's just another one of your tactics to make it seem like you're winning a disagreement, when in reality you're posting nonsensical, incomplete, or plain misleading bull****.

I'd rather you whine about how I'm "chickening out" instead of wasting hours of my time refuting you, when no one really cares about our war of words, and even if I objectively win you'll just ignore that and pretend I lost because I didn't "take up your challenge."

How about this: I challenge you to accept the fact that you've made a mockery out of yourself and stop posting halfass defensive rants. And if you keep posting, I win?
 
Last edited:
Did you really just humor us all by linking to a
Korean
tabletop gamer's
private blog
as supporting evidence for your tirade?

Yes!


Yes you ****ing did it!

The person's blog has the scanned picture from the book. Your point?


And to quote your tabletop gaming guru:
"It was pointed out that Kenji Sato was the period when the sword and the spear coexisted as the main weapon , but in reality it was the era of the bow and the sword."

Even the guy you're ****ing quoting is omitting your precious spear in favor of the bow.

Do you really want me to PROPERLY translate what that part points out, instead of your two-bit piss-poor abuse of Google Translate?

Well, ok, here it goes:

"사토 켄지는 주력무기로서 칼과 창이 공존하던 시대(刀槍倂用時代)라고 했지만, 실제는 활이 주고 칼이 종인 시대(弓主刀從時代)였다라는 지적이죠."

Sato Kenji (*pre-WWII hitorian) purports it as an era of "swords and spears (刀槍倂用時代)," but in reality, it was an age where the bow was the master, and the sword was a servan(弓主刀從時代).

그럼 전국시대의 데이터는 어떨까요? 스즈키 마사야는 '소총본위시대'라는 지적이 실로 적절했다며, 실제와 다르게 '총창병용시대'라고 인식하는 사람이 너무 많다고 말하고 있습니다. (굳이 나누라면, 저는 총창병용시대 쪽으로 생각하고 있습니다)

Then what does the data of the Sengoku era suggest? Suzuki Masaya considers that the term 'the era of guns' is adequate, and too many people consider it to be an era where guns and spears were equal. (However, if it must be said, I personally consider it to be an era of both spears and guns)

He's basically referencing Suzuki's works to refute OLD, OUTDATED views on the "era of swords and spears" -- such as Sato Kenji's. And then, he compiles the list of data, which is as follows:

Period: 1467 - 1637
Collected pieces: 201
Number of deaths: 190
Number of wounded: 1,497
Cause of casualy:

- Arrows: 604 (40.3%)
- Teppu: 286 (19.1%)

- Spears: 261 (17.4%)
- Rocks: 150 (10.0%)
- Swords: 56 (3.7%)

Oh gee. The data seems to match this comment:

3. Records during the Sengoku era point to around 60% of battlefield deaths attributed to projectiles(arrows, stones, guns), 30% by spears, and only 10% by swords.

4. Both in Europe and Japan, swords were side-weapons.. The mainstay of Japanese armies during the mid/late Sengoku era became the pike infantry. In a typical order of battle, a Sengoku army would consist of around 60% pike infantry, 30% bowmen, 10% teppu. The Japanese did not have cavalry as a military unit. Only a handful of commanding nobles would be on a horse.

Who made that extremely accurate comment above? Certainly not you.



I mean every single time I do any kind of research into your sources, I'm pleasantly surprised but this...
This is just precious to me.
Thank you.

What research? In the entire span both threads you were involved in, you didn't bring even one piece of evidence. No studies, no citations, no data. Just a heap of Musashi quotes in your fanboism.


Inb4 "Masaya Suzuki" even though the chart only tracks one ****ing skirmish. Unless you think that only ~1500 people died in that entire, and I quote, "era" that you think the chart is tracking lol

Guess what the "Onin's war ~ Shimabara Rebellion" means, on the bottom of the chart.
Oh wait. You can't read it, can you.

Rather, you think this is from 'only one skirmish' -- clearly means you didn't go look up what "kanjyou" and "gunchyuujyo" means. LOL. Yes, yes of course. Since they don't pop up in english in GOOGLE, since it's a subject weebs have no clue about.

I rest me case. ROFL
..
 
Last edited:
(ps) How do I know you just ran Google Translate without any clue of what the blog actually is about? Or what study it suggests you to take note of?

The Blog's name is "Inspector Akechi's Armchair Debates." He's an amateur history buff that specializes in the Sengoku period, and the reason why you think this guy's a "table top gamer," is because "탁상공론" google-translated it into something involving tables, which, in reality, that term is a Korean expression meaning "discussions at the table."

Friggin' pitiful, dude.
 
Who made that extremely accurate comment above? Certainly not you.

Except you actually had the gall to retcon your own statement, then call it "extremely accurate."

Original statement: "Records during the Sengoku era point to around 60% of battlefield deaths attributed to projectiles(arrows, stones, guns), 30% by spears, and 10% by teppu."
Altered:
Records during the Sengoku era point to around 60% of battlefield deaths attributed to projectiles(arrows, stones, guns), 30% by spears, and only 10% by swords.

When you pull that kind of ****ing gross editing just to make yourself look more credible, it's time to realize a spade is a spade and be content in the knowledge that by all fair accounts, you've lost.

Oh, and you attacking Google is kind of like how everyone used to attack Wikipedia 15 years ago as a non-credible source of information, but they all used it anyway. You pretending that google is somehow less legit than the sourceless language translator you used isn't proving anything.

All this, combined with the fact that you utterly ignored my first (and larger) post, and to quote you:
I rest "me" case LOL
Except I'm not a bull****ter
 
Except you actually had the gall to retcon your own statement, then call it "extremely accurate."

Original statement: "Records during the Sengoku era point to around 60% of battlefield deaths attributed to projectiles(arrows, stones, guns), 30% by spears, and 10% by teppu."
Altered:
Records during the Sengoku era point to around 60% of battlefield deaths attributed to projectiles(arrows, stones, guns), 30% by spears, and only 10% by swords.

When you pull that kind of ****ing gross editing just to make yourself look more credible, it's time to realize a spade is a spade and be content in the knowledge that by all fair accounts, you've lost.

huh.png


"When you pull that kind of ****ing gross editing just to make yourself look more credible, it's time to realize a spade is a spade and be content in the knowledge that by all fair accounts, you've lost."

I couldn't agree more. You've actually fallen back to the point to conjure up a false claim in desparation.

Dude. Really?


Oh, and you attacking Google is kind of like how everyone used to attack Wikipedia 15 years ago as a non-credible source of information, but they all used it anyway. You pretending that google is somehow less legit than the sourceless language translator you used isn't proving anything.

So were your translations relying on Google accurate? -- Ooh. It wasn't, was it, now.

Google Translate is fine, if you've actually used it to present accurate info. But it wasn't the correct info, was it.
You misinterpreted the information, and thought it was something that backed your case, but it turned out different.

In the end, that's what it is. A hasty, desperate attempt to refute my claims, citing evidence you've never seen before. You panicked, thought to discredit me by using faulty translation through Google Translate, and YOU FAILED.


All this, combined with the fact that you utterly ignored my first (and larger) post, and to quote you:
I rest "me" case LOL
Except I'm not a bull****ter

But you've already literally bullsh**ted in this post, making up a false claim about me editing something.

How much more credibility are you willing to lose today?
 
Edited.png


As for anyone who doesn't know what's going on, at this point, that guy above, now literally lied and made up an accusation that I retroactively changed my opinion through edit.

Fortunately, all edits after a certain time of original posting, leaves an 'edited' marker, and this marker is visible to others as well. Anyone can go check my original comment on page1 of this thread.

Dishonest agents turn every discussion into a shi*show. **sigh**
 
(ps) I tend to very frequently edit posts, revising on the wording and correcting spelling mistakes. Thanks to sheer luck, the original post this person is accusing me of, had no such edits. (although the time stamp on the edit would still have clearly shown I haven't changed anything at the time frame of his false accusation.)

Sweet jeebuti.
 
My bad, I confused your third point with your fourth point.
Maybe if I didn't have to wade through such a river of bull****, and have to juggle multiple threads worth of posts due to your ceaseless accusations, I could keep every single one of my facts straight instead of making an occasional mistake regarding what you posted pages back in one of them.

Then again, I've been noticing that you continually focus on minor details instead of staying true to the spirit of the conversation:
The accuracy of Google translate - even through you're the one using information in foreign languages, yet refuse to translate them yourself (big lol)
The translation of "tabletop" in Korean instead of the fact that you're getting information from a blog to support your dubious claims about history
Sounding off about how "extremely accurate" your claim was when you literally just copied the information of a graph you posted (that you didn't make)
3 entire posts about one claim I made about you that was wrong, when you've been making wrong statements and bad faith claims for weeks

You lose your ****ing mind when someone else makes a mistake, but false claims are you calling card friend.
Your reaction kind of suggests that you'd jump all over someone if you can prove they're wrong, so you must not have that opportunity very often since this is the first time you went on a self-righteous rampage (including addressing readers directly in a P.S, post, wtf).
I'll take your relative lack of interaction with my other posts as a sign that you only want to prove others wrong, instead of actually sharing ideas.

In any case, congratulations - you finally turned out to be right. One time.
Now if only you'd admit to yourself how many times you've been wrong -- and how many times I've dealt with you being wrong more graciously than you can deal with being right once -- maybe we can get somewhere.

Or I could just make three straight posts, raging about how you said "he's an amateur history buff that specializes in the Sengoku period" when there is zero evidence in his blog that he specializes in anything about the Sengoku period, and you just pulled that straight out of everyone-knows-where. And this time, anyone can follow the link and see firsthand, so you can't claim I'm making anything up. But unlike you, I won't subject readers to a rampage when I know I'm right and can prove you wrong.
 
Last edited:
After going through all this, I concluded that they should add dual wielding in the game, in the form of two lords endlessly arguing about it lol.
 
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 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.




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.



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."



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.





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.



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?
Yes, the guy is a fool, and yes he is preaching biased fallacies to support his weird agenda.
BUT (_|_) one thing is factual, it seems like Samurai were mostly trained as HORSE ARCHERS (****ing shait, hate horse archers). And that the use of Katana was indeed secondary (they'd use mostly polearms for melee combat, there's a plethora of them and most look awesome). Anyway, probably dual-wielding happened a lot in the heat of battle depending on the situation, but I'd wager that only very few Samurai would do it outside of very specific circumstances (Musashi being one of them). Since they didn't use shields, it's likely that dual wielding granted them a good defensive weapon in certain situations, which would be under yet another layer of circumstances given swords were the backup weapon (like a pistol).

If you follow too hard on this path without recognizing those two points the fool will try to exploit it endlessly, that's why I've decided to share the little I know about it.
 
Yes, the guy is a fool, and yes he is preaching biased fallacies to support his weird agenda.
BUT (_|_) one thing is factual, it seems like Samurai were mostly trained as HORSE ARCHERS (****ing shait, hate horse archers). And that the use of Katana was indeed secondary (they'd use mostly polearms for melee combat, there's a plethora of them and most look awesome). Anyway, probably dual-wielding happened a lot in the heat of battle depending on the situation, but I'd wager that only very few Samurai would do it outside of very specific circumstances (Musashi being one of them). Since they didn't use shields, it's likely that dual wielding granted them a good defensive weapon in certain situations, which would be under yet another layer of circumstances given swords were the backup weapon (like a pistol).

If you follow too hard on this path without recognizing those two points the fool will try to exploit it endlessly, that's why I've decided to share the little I know about it.


I agree with you! Spot on.
 
Duel weilding is a gimmick for sure. Although it could be great if modders had the tools to use it even if it wasn't in the base game. I imagine many mods based on other fantasies could use such a feature.
 
Back
Top Bottom