The Truth About Swords

[Nelson]

Not to diminish my error of lumping naginata and yari (mentally both polearms), in looking up the actual use of naginata by Samurai, I found that warrior monks wore armor!

In no uncertain terms in many places in Turnbull’s book Samurai Warfare he mentions Sohei armor (never says anything about no armor).

Yep. I griped about monks 10 years ago about the same thing. Since the devs made them extra strong on offense they felt they needed to be nerfed on defense. For "balance", I suppose...

And this after CA said they used Turnbull for research.

Not that this has prevented me from still enjoying the game a lot!

[BasharCaptWill]

off topic (only a short note)

except Turnbull, there is - Karl F. Friday with two books on this matter. The first one is ''Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan'' and the second one is ''Hired Swords: The Rise of Private Warrior Power in Early Japan''.
there is also one short discussion regarding this matter on e-budo forums: about swordsmanship

My opinion is that you simply have to make some sacrifices in regards to historical accuracy if you want to have enjoyable gameplay.

[BasharCaptWill]

That besides being then taken up by the monks during the Sengoku, it was considered a women’s weapon in later years, and still is today. But you do see them in many pictures of Samurai from the time, so who knows?

You'll find very detailed answer regarding this matter in the book 'Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan', which is already mentioned in the post above. If you are more interested in this topic, you might be interested to read book like classical bujutsu (still one of best books on this matter in english literature; more detailed are only koryu book series, and two books regarding koryu - one was written by Serge Mol, and the othr by Ellis Amdur ) by Donn F. Draeger.

effect of the naginata swung

[jackie_fish]

really really nice information always good to know your back ground

[00owl]

Here is what I don't get: a well used spear should always beat sword. Why you might ask? Well because the spear is LONGER than the sword, AND it is more of a piercing type damage which means it should get better armour penetration. Now of course, that being said once the sword is inside the spears reach then you've got problems but still, don't forget that both ends of a spear are dangerous... quarterstaff anyone?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Katana Samurai are excllent.

But Yari Ashaguri they're like Napoleon's fusliers of line,they really are a good force.

And the Archers are killers!

[Dionysus9]

Good points-- I think partly the answer is that (as Elmo sometimes reminds us) historical accuracy may need to take a back-seat to playability. Now, that being said, Miyamoto Musashi had this to say about swords, halberds (naginata I assume) and spears:

"The best use of the companion sword [wakizashi] is in a confined space, or when you are engaged closely with an opponent. The long sword [katana] can be used effectively in all situations.

The halberd [naginata] is inferior to the spear on the battlefield. With the spear you can take the initiative; the halberd is defensive. In the hands of one of two men of equal ability, the spear gives a little extra strength. Spear and halberd both have their uses, but neither is very beneficial in confined spaces. They cannot be used for taking a prisoner. They are essentially weapons for the field."

He makes a great point that you cannot easily take prisoners with a spear, whereas it is easier with a sword (you can get behind them and hold it against their throat). He says elsewhere in the Five Rings (no time to search for the exact passage) that dual-wielding swords (katana and wakizashi) is the best and only effective way to fight multiple opponents.

Spears are good for facing off against a single opponent in an open area. They are therefore most effective in a dense formation, like the hoplites used-- so that each spearman is responsible only for the enemy in front of him. Swords, on the other hand--especially when dual-wielding, can be used to fight multiple opponents and are good in open areas and also in confined spaces.

Imagine you are a lone spearman fighting 3 swordsmen. Not looking so hot. Imagine now you are a lone swordsman facing three spears.

Facing multiple opponents I'd rather be dual wielding swords than holding a single spear.

So maybe there is something to be said for swords beating spears-- especially if the spear's formation is in disorder. But ultimately, for this game to work, there has to be a rock-paper-scissors element. Spears>Cav>Swords>Spears works pretty well.

[chrisj]

Imagine you are a lone spearman fighting 3 swordsmen. Not looking so hot. Imagine now you are a lone swordsman facing three spears.

Facing multiple opponents I'd rather be dual wielding swords than holding a single spear.

Very good point, but I'm not sure I'd want to do either considering three weapons capable of piercing-type damage are a serious threat to you. The reach advantage over your dual-wielding swords while you're already faced with very poor defensive strength in each arm forcing you to rely entirely on being elusive and constantly moving to avoid the long spears. How would you close the distance with three spears ready to pierce you in either side of your torso at any point? It would definitely be a better choice for staying alive, though, if you were in fact faced with such a situation.