The Truth About Swords

[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.

[Dionysus9]

Heheh, no doubt! I'd rather be at the Geisha house, for sure. Here's what old Musashi had to say about it:
"To Mingle --
In battles, when the armies are in confrontation, attack the enemy's strong points and, when you see that they are beaten back, quickly separate and attack yet another strong point on the periphery of his force. The spirit of this is like a winding mountain path.
This is an important fighting method for one man against many. Strike down the enemies in one quarter, or drive them back, then grasp the timing and attack further strong points to right and left, as if on a winding mountain path, weighing up the enemies' disposition. When you know the enemies' level attack strongly with no trace of retreating spirit.
What is meant by "mingling" is the spirit of advancing and becoming engaged with the enemy, and not withdrawing even one step. You must understand this."

I think Musashi would say you must sieze the initiative -- drive hard at the spearman on one flank, staying as close as possible to him, then relentlessly attack the next opponent the instant he is defeated.

Since a spear is most effective when it is thrust forward (rather than swung in an arc), the sharp end of a spear is usually wielded in a predictable manner. If you get in close to the spearman you are fighting and keep moving, the other two will have a hard time hitting you without risking hitting their friend.

[00owl]

While yes the spear is most effective when thrust forward it is still useful when swung side to side as a well balanced spear can do miracles in the right hands. Also, if the spearmen are intelligent esp when in the majority they should be able to back up just as fast as the swordsman advances, thereby always keeping him out of reach and surrounded.