This is something I've always wondered. In feudal Europe and feudal China, ancient Greece and ancient Rome, the Persian empire, the feudal Middle East, the Aztec empire, etc, shields were an integral part of hand-to-hand combat. I've never seen a Japanese shield, though. To my knowledge, samurai never carried shields. My question: why not?
They were archers and two handed spear / halberd users - shield was not so helpful. The european analogues are more like the English longbowmen and Swiss short pike - who also used no shield rather than Roman shortsword and shield or Greek hoplites. The Japanese did have shields back before the rise of the samurai class. Some haniwa are modelled carrying large shields in the chinese style 3rd-6th century but they gave them up with the giving up of the conscript army. http://archaeology.jp/sites/2006/mukade.htm Read Karl Friday http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA89,M1 For a more scholarly view.
also, the katana was a two-handed weapon (or hand and a half, to be more precise, since it could be used single handed as well; what us geeks call a "******* sword", only 10x more awesome), which would also be hindered by a shield. basically, the samurai were primarily 2h weapon users, that's why. the okinawans did use a tiny little shield along with a medium sized dagger, though (the rochin & tinbei combo seen in okinawan kobudo)
As I'm sure you're probably aware of... the vast majority of people fighting on a battlefield wouldn't have been samurai. But lower class foot soldiers who carried spears. On top of which if a samurai was carrying two swords it would have been rather unwieldy to try and also carry a shield into battle.
I guess I didn't phrase the question right. I mean, obviously if you've got a two-handed weapon you're not going to have a shield. But every feudal society had some two-handed weapons. I don't know of a feudal society besides Japan, though, where one-handed-weapons-and-shields were completely abandoned in favor of two-handed weapons, by all types of soldiers on the battlefield. For certain applications--archers, anti-cavalry, and perhaps shock troops--two-handed is the way to go. But most societies favored one-handed-weapons and shields for anti-infantry infantry, from the Hoplite to the Teutonic knight to the basket-hilt-claymore-wielding Jacobite at Culloden. What about Japan made the sword-and-shield completely disappear from the various weaponry seen on the battlefield?
Hi Mitlov Here is a drawing I did of a Minamoto Samurai standing in front of a "shield". They were moved around the battlefield to provide cover but of course never used in melee. regards koyo
I believe that shields did exist in the early japanese amoury but they where not present by the time the samurai http://www.samurai-archives.com/earlyjapan.html scroll down to "The Early warriors" more here http://www.judoinfo.com/samurai.htm Reading of Dr. Karl Friday's books may shed more light. "Hired Swords" by him might have some theories. George Sansom's "A History of Japan to 1334" might be a one good as well. From what I remember the earliest clans in southern Japan used shields. The Japanese of the time emulated the trends of the continent especially after warring in Korea with enemies who primarily used horse mounted archers. This led to early Samurai types being armored horse archers. This might be why they did not use shields as time went on. When the different clans started raising their own armies especially in the Sengoku Jidai they might not have been very concerned about the lives of their foot soldiers (Ashigaru) and most of the weapons they used were two-handed.
Here's some more ideas on the subject from author Anthony J Bryant: Both Chinese and Korean lower-grade troops used various forms of shield; often rectangular for the Koreans and round for the Chinese. A portion of the Chinese forces fighting during the Boxer Rebellion were still equipped with round shields as late as 1900, just before the Chinese forces were properly modernised. In Japan in the earliest phase of development (around the 3rd and 4th centuries AD), strange rectangular shields with in-curved sides and a rounded top were used by the lower-grade troops. These shields were no longer in use by the 10th century. Later, and before the 19th century modernisation of the Japanese Army, large numbers of large, rectangular wooden shields fitted with a leg at the rear (equivalent to the western pavisse) were used on the battlefield, within fixed fortifications and in siege lines. These were portable and could be re-positioned as required, but left both hands free to use a bow or matchlock musket. They were thick enough to stop both arrows and bullets. Upper-class Japanese warriors (bushi or samurai) never used a shield since both hands were needed for the bow, spear or sword. Their armour was designed to absorb both arrow hits and sword thrusts. Source(s): Early Samurai 200-1500 AD by Anthony J Bryant
It's a really interesting question considering so many great army nations used the shield so effectively, the Romans would be the most effective exponents I imagine. (Testudo formation). Maybe the smaller scale clan warfare didn't demand the use of very large groups of shielded infantry like the legions.
You must also wonder why the LANCE and shield were never developed....the spear being the weapon most used by cavalry. As you say..interesting. regards koyo
The shield died out for foot knights in western europe in the second half of the middle ages as plate armour improved, and two handed weapons came to the fore. Indeed, it's possible that jousting is what preserved the image of knights with shields.
Yeah, that is interesting. Impact warfare (lance + horse + armoured horseman) is incredibly effective. Could it be a byproduct of Japanese topography? You need big open areas to make the most of lancers, and Japan is pretty mountainous. I don't recall the Swiss using heavy calvary (although I'm no historian), but they did use a lot of infantry with pikes to very good effect. In fact, the lance is the great difference between knight and samurai, IMO. The knights were mounted lancers, and the samurai were mounted archers throughout a fair chunk of their history. Other than that, their skill sets are largely identical, right down to the nitty gritty of individual techniques. So obviously, in Japanese warfare, there was a factor that made the use of a shield less optimal than it was in Europe at similar levels of technology. This is strange, since the sword and shield combo is one of the most practical weapon combos possible... it's very hard to deal with. Yoroi never reached the near-complete coverage afforded by European plate armour that rendered the shield obsolete in the 1400's. To a degree, martial arts are influenced by fashion. The tsuba on a katana is certainly less likely to get caught up in traditional Japanese clothing than a sword with a crossguard, and the Japanese did have swords with crossguards earlier in their history. European Smallswords (used much later than the medieval period) were designed with the same intent... to stay out of the way of courtly clothing. Medieval Europeans wore hose and jackets, in which a crossguard is unlikely to become entangled. Perhaps shields simply don't work well with Yoroi? Best regards, -Mark
The large sode (shoulder to elbow guard) look for all intents and purposes like "shields". It is not difficult to imagine turning side on to an attacker and using them as such. regards koyo
Huh. That's a really excellent question, Mitlov. I wish that weren't the most useful thing I have to say on the subject... but it is.
Here's a theory. As someone else noted, in the high middle ages in Europe, shields became less and less popular with infantry, and mainly persisted because of their use by cavalry. My understanding for why this happened was armor got "too good." You really needed a can opener of a weapon to ensure that you would penetrate your opponent's armor. So unless you had a lance (and the momentum of a charging horse), that meant a big weapon wielded with both hands. When heavy armor went out of fashion (I think due to firearms), shields, particularly the buckler, became very common and popular for non-mounted combatants again. Japan had truly exceptional armor-makers, from what I've read. Light and flexible armor, but incredibly difficult to penetrate. Perhaps a one-handed sword lacked the ability to consistently cut through Japanese armor from a very early date, far earlier than in Europe? And then you didn't have firearms in Japan until very late (Meiji period, I think? Not sure), so heavy armor remained popular for the battlefield until very recently. By the time firearms arrived, they were quite sophisticated and powerful, thus making shields as obsolete as heavy body armor, so shields never regained popularity before the era of modern warfare began (like the buckler in renaissance Europe). Anyway, this is just a theory I have; I could be completely off the mark. EDIT: Thanks ap_Oweyn
A truly excellent theory Mitlov, but for the sake of comparison and discussion.... might it have boiled down to culturally driven conceptions of what was 'manly' or acceptable? Shame was a much more powerful motivator in the pre-industrial world... which is arguably a shame paul
I would like to believe that komuso BUT there are examples of sons exiling fathers killing brothers and whole clans changing sides in the middle of battle. Some say that "bushido and the hagakure" which exemplify the samurai were written specifically to bring them under the control of the Tokugawa and weaken their "martial ardour" Anyway below is the only use of shields I could find. regards koyo
I dont have time to look it up now, but if I am not completly of I recon reading a few words on the issue about bushi and horses in a book by Mr. Draeger, classical bujutsu, about the horses not being very strong and longlasting in heavy loadings. And I am thinking that a yumi not being very heavy, but lances, shields and so forth being much more heavier. Maybe thats a reason, for the lances that is.
You'd be right Ludde. I've read the book in question and Dr Friday does state that the horse of Japan at the time were nothing compared to the large stock that we commonly know as horses. They didn't have the speed or the load bearing ability of Arabian/European horses, thus the concept of lance warfare wasn't really feasible. Not sure about your theory re armour Mitlov. I have a Japanese book full of armour here, and the design actually evolved toward that of European plate armour as time went on. Too bad we don't have someone like Dr Friday here with us. And totally agreed with koyo. Shame was a very relative term in Japan at the time, and what would be considered outright treachery was common. Honour was more often than not surviving at the end of the day.
Cavalry didn't use shields once plate became available either. Bucklers never went out of fashion while people were fighting with swords "for real". Henry V's archers had bucklers. Not everyone had plate. Europe had equally good (if not better) armourers. Milanese harness was a marvel of technology. European armour is no heavier than Japanese armour. You can do cartwheels in full plate. The fact of the matter is that swords are not good anti-armour weapons, and never have been. They're sidearms... the reason they stayed popular is their versatility. A longsword (for example) is the most versatile weapon that you can carry on your hip. Asides form the buckler stuff, that's an interesting idea. Best regards, -Mark
