Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
Zasady dyskusji i wytyczne
Zgłoś ten post
Spear > swords, especially if fought as a unit.
But with the sword you can cut off limbs and head. Sword is much more agile, faster weapon. It doesn't require huge open space. Like what a spearman can do when he is in a row stadning tightly surrounded by his mates. He can only pierce his spear forward.
samurais' spear usually get cut down by katana and forced to draw sword anyway. （but theres some elite samurai using extra heavy/durable spear and master spear arts and practice fight with katana opponent all the time. they are "elite" in spear art, so we better not count them in as there isnt much of them.）
I know old Japanese armies never had a phalanx but they still had units that made spearwalls. Surely a charging samurai with sword couldn't just cut through them like this game shows.
Ok, so swordsmen charge, you can stick your spear into one and while trying to get it out another comes and chopps off your head. Then what? Then he can easily turn around and chopp off another one because he's busy trying to turn around his long spear towards you while his elbow is stopped with the back of his comrade. The guy can also cut your spear tip with his sword or grab it with his one hand while slashing you wtih the other.
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/117488/why-sword-beats-spear-or-not-your-opinion
Also with spears the more the enemy pushes or forces the greater the penetrating power of the spear.
A sword requires training especially if you are going to wave it around in a space where you have allies, a spear can be picked up by anyone and becomes more effective the more people you have bunched up holding them.
In japan at the time you didn't have huge units of samurai running around like you see in the game but equally they were not small in number, modern day upper-middle class would probably be the closest estimate to the number of samurai knocking about and most would be leading a number of peasants.
In combat they favoured the longbow, spear and eventually flintlock rifle over the sword, they weren't idiots, the sword was the last resort for most although there were a few that would rampage with only the sword.
As for a unit of peasant spears vs a theoretical unit of samurai charging them the spears would get trampled, modern day kevlar was inspired by samurai armour which was very very very very very very good at blocking thrusts.
The helemet and face mask designed to protect the neck face and head were also designed to look fearsome, so a bunch of peasants with pointy stick and not a lot of armour would probably be swiftly dispatched by our theoretical charging force of armoured, trained samurai charging them down.
Irl there were no samurai units of either all swords or all spears. There weren't really units like in the game at all. Then you have to account for the skill level of the fighters.
But there are several areas of knowledge that suggest spears were more effective (or at the least, more popular) in a general melee during the Sengoku than swords: A) historical data and evidence; B) fighting doctrine and tactics; C) physics.
A) First, historical evidence:
1) Individual samurai would most likely all be carrying some type of bladed weapon as a sidearm, even if only a large dagger. The main weapon became the yari or naginata, but just like with European men at arms, the sword or dagger was held in reserve, similar to how a soldier might carry a pistol nowadays with a rifle as his main arm.
There were probably no samurai who went into a general battle carrying only a katana, if they could by any means avoid that. When they mustered, they were expected to bring at least a spear. So while the sword may not have been inferior to the spear per se, it was considered a secondary weapon, which is telling.
2) There were not units of samurai like in the game. In the Sengoku period, samurai were organized on the battlefield into ad hoc groups (gumi) similar to a European "battle" or "banner," where you had a prominent man leading his followers and retainers, who in turn had their followers.
Such a group would have had men armed with a variety of weapons: yari, naginata, swords, and later, guns, as well as weapons that Shogun 2 doesn't depict in the Sengoku campaign, such as hammers, war clubs or maces, axes, and even various types of rakes or "forks."
There wouldn't be a "yari samurai unit" and a "katana samurai unit," just as in Europe there was no "pole axe unit" or something, but instead something like "the vanguard battle, under Lord X," or "Sir Y's banner."
Many samurai showed up to battle with more than one weapon anyway, again similar to European knights: a well off samurai in the late Sengoku might easily have an arquebuse, two or three yari, a naginata, a katana, a wakizashi, and a tanto, and would use different weapons according to circumstances.
The samurai fought in combined arms groups which suggests that individual ability with a melee weapon was more important in combat than any "inherent strength" of a particular weapon.
When men actually were formed in ranks around a particular weapon, to capitalize on its strength, this manifested in the wall of yari, with men grounding the yari in the first ranks as a cavalry deterrent. Similarly, we see guns and bows grouped for greater effect.
But there doesn't seem to have been anything similar done tactically for swords.
There is mention of yarigumi, yumigumi, and teppogumi (spear, bow, and gun groups, respectively), as well as squads of guns (tai) that could operate independently (similar to European "sleeves of shot," they became used more and more in the late Sengoku and were standard practice by the time Hideyoshi invaded Korea) but, to my knowledge, no mention of any "katana gumi" as a tactical formation.
Many people think the No Dachi, or "field sword," may have been used in special groups, similar to how European hosts had men with large two handers move in advance of the main group, in a "forlorn hope" or something. But we don't really know for sure because much of the stuff written about Sengoku fighting is either lost, or still untranslated.
3) While the artwork of the time almost always depicts men fighting with guns, spears or naginata in battle scenes, very rarely is someone shown with their sword drawn in a general melee, although several scenes show samurai with drawn katana off on the periphery of the main battle chasing fleeing guys, or taking heads as trophies.
4) The literary evidence of the period reveals that the spear, not the sword, was a symbolic reference to fighters, e.g. the famous "Seven Spears of Shizugatake."
And it wasn't just an isolated example with that famous battle either: the title "seven spears," or shichi hon yari, was a common way during the Sengoku of recognizing those who were considered to have had distinguished themselves the most in a battle. Many battles of the time had their "seven spears," not just Shizugatake.
It is also interesting that during the Sengoku the first man to make contact with the enemy, or lead an attack, was honored with the title, ichiban yari, or "the first spear."
Special spears were also sometimes given as gifts by lords to their retainers to symbolize their value on the battlefield, a famous example was when Tokugawa Ieyasu presented Hattori Hanzo with a ceremonial spear in recognition.
The references to the sword being the "soul of the samurai" and such come almost entirely from Edo period documents, decades or even more than a century after Sekigahara.
B) Fighting doctrine and tactics:
1) The surviving yari and naginata fighting schools teach many effective techniques for how to defeat swordsmen, and even how to effectively take on multiple opponents at the same time. We can assume that in the Sengoku there were at least the same techniques, if not more, in use.
In European martial arts, we have numerous treatises and manuals of arms that deal with the same subject, and it doesn't appear that in either Europe or Japan the swordsman was considered in any way a "nullifier" to the man with a pole arm like it is in TW games. If anything, many manuals for the use of the sword stress the threat that the spearman or polearm wielding opponent poses to the swordsman, not the other way around.
2) Historical fencing, like the type done through HEMA nowadays, confirms in practice that the old treatises described efficient and effective techniques. We can extrapolate from this and say fairly safely that in Japan too, the swordsman was at a disadvantage against the spearman under most conditions.
The primary advantage the spear or polearm has over the sword is reach (which is a huge advantage), and depending on what weapon we're looking at, usually the ability to deliver more effective thrusting strikes or heavier blows, which translates over to some things in the physics area as well.
3) Treatises, manuals and historical fencing also show many of the supposed weaknesses or disadvantages of the spear or other pole weapon that are often thrown around to be based on misunderstanding, or lack of experience in weapons based martial arts.
For example, the common idea that if the swordsman can "get inside the arc" of the spearman, he's got him dead: in reality all the spearman has to do is choke up on the haft, meaning he just holds the spear closer to the point. Sure, with an 18 foot pike this might be hard to do, but it's actually very fast and easy to do fluidly with a spear around 8 feet or so.
On a similar thread, people will often say that the sword is "more versatile" because it can be manipulated in different directions, perform back cuts and draws, thrust under or over a guard, etc. while the spear "just pokes."
But the spear can do all of this too. Because of the greater leverage and arc from having a haft, the end of a spear or polearm can actually, in many situations, be manipulated more quickly than a sword point, for example making a strike to the foot and then up to the face almost immediately can be done easier with a pole weapon than a sword like the katana.
Depending on the type of polearm, you can not only make back cuts, but attacks that a sword cannot do (without grappling), like hooking an opponent's neck or leg. Also, pole arms often have a spike on the butt of the haft, giving even more versatility, such as feinting with the point and then giving a thrust with the butt. The haft can also be used to help with all sorts of grappling techniques for close in.
And spear heads don't just poke, they can cut too: there is absolutely no reason you couldn't do a push or draw cut with a yari or naginata blade.
Another common "disadvantage" cited is that the swordsman can simply cut the end of the polearm off.
But this ignores several things: a) pole arms aren't made out of balsa wood, they are made specifically to withstand blows and are built with strong material; b) most pole weapons have some form of metal langets to protect the haft; c) in a fight, purposefully attacking the enemy's weapon, instead of the enemy himself, is usually a very bad idea, because it gives the initiative to the enemy and there is the risk of your sword breaking or getting stuck on the polearm.
If the enemy with the polearm has good technique, you're leaving yourself totally open and he'll just receive the blow (i.e. not resist the energy of the sword), let the sword follow through the arc of your blow, away from his centerline, then immediately riposte to your face or something, which you'd have a hard time closing the line being overextended in a 'spear rending' heavy blow.
C) Physics:
1) As armor got heavier, slashing cuts became less effective. Even heavy clothing reduces the effectiveness of cuts.
Pole weapons allow a very powerful thrust to punch through armor, and the shaft allows very good point control to thrust at small areas, like the armpit, throat and face, which was very important with the greater coverage that advanced armor provided.
2) Like what was said with the "tactics" portion, shearing a spear or other polearm is not easy. The guy with a spear is not likely to just hold his weapon still and let you cut it, and the shaft isn't set in place in a vice or something: even if hit, it's going to move, and there is a transfer of the momentum to the whole spear and its wielder, not necessarily into a break along the point of contact. More likely, the katana blade would get caught in the meat of the haft.
Instead of cleaving the spear, the katana would also be likely to knock the spear offline. This can be used as a technique, where you try to knock the opponent's weapon off the line to create an opening (sometimes called "battering"); but this isn't some inherent advantage that the sword has over a spear or other polearm: the spearman can batter your sword too.
3) Keeping a hold on your weapon ("retention") is very important, and the greater leverage you can exert on a haft makes it more difficult for an opponent to wrench the weapon away with grappling techniques. In some schools of European medieval martial arts, they even developed 'half swording,' where you hold your longsword like a polearm in certain circumstances to increase retention and/or aid in grappling.
4) Again, along the lines of what I said under "tactics," there is no reason a spear or other polearm blade can't cut like a sword: it's the same physics, provided the polearm actually has an edge and not just a spiked point like some pikes had.
There seems to be a common misconception that a sword "chops," but in actuality, to make an effective cut you have to either push or draw the edge across what you're cutting.
It's just like cutting a steak with a knife: if you just bring the blade straight down, parallel to the meat's surface, you aren't going to cut the steak in two; you will make small impression, but that's it. If you press the blade whilst also drawing the blade towards you though, you can slice through the grain of the meat and cut the steak in two.
So if someone was able to do a good push cut with a naginata along your neck, your neck is going to open up like a canoe just as it would with a katana. Likewise, if they got the naginata under the crook of your arm and did a good, strong draw cut, they might very well lop your arm off just the same as if they had got an ideal strike with a sword. The physics are identical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said at the beginning, I think skill was probably more important than anything, regardless of what weapon a guy was using.
But there are a lot of reasons why a guy would want a polearm as his main weapon instead of sword, and the historical evidence indicates that in the Sengoku the yari was indeed the preferred melee weapon for general battle situations, or at least the weapon most associated with professional fighters at the time.
Evidence from European history with similar styles of combat seems to corroborate that, as does modern reconstruction and practice of the historical techniques.
The katana is heavily associated with the samurai because of Edo period writings and combats, but we have to remember that their world had changed a lot from the Sengoku.
For one, the age of mass battles was over, and duels or brawls in the street were the way that combat played out in the Edo time. If samurai or ronin were in town on the street, or in a teahouse or something, they weren't going to be walking around toting a naginata or something, but they would have a sword, so it's natural that any fights that broke out would be between swordsmen.
On the Sengoku battlefield though, a samurai fitted out for war was going to have the sword as simply one weapon in his kit, and there was nothing inherent to it that "nullified" or "beat" pole weapons like in TW.
PS: lol just looked at my post length....sorry for all the text, but this is one of the aspects of ancient and medieval warfare I'm very interested in :)
In the end, I think your suspicions in the op and throughout the thread have a lot of basis, and the bottom line is that the way TW handles sword-spear-cav is done so CA can achieve their rock-paper-scissors battle mechanics for "balance."
It's very far removed from actually representing the dynamics of real melee fighting though. Irl, the spear was, across cultures and throughout the ages, one of the most powerful, versatile and effective weapons used.
Games like TW give the impression that the spear's main strengths are cheapness and ease of production, along with ease of training, but history shows that was anything but the case.
There are various arts in the use of the spear, and it was definitely not considered a simplistic or peasants' weapon, or easy to beat in the hands of competent wielders. An expert spear fighter could kill a novice swordsman in two moves.
The spear/sword thing has always had me wondering. That's the problem with being so conditioned with hollywood movies, you end up thinking swords are very common and can destroy everything and you always associate a samurai with a sword only, but playing these games makes me analyse it more.
Will takea a look at that, thanks.