Shields in Japan

[Sparv]

I have never seen in any samurai film anybody who uses a shield. Was it true, even in battles?

[Damien_lucifer]

hmm its interesting, did fedal japanese carry sheilds into battle, i dont recall seeing any wood cuttings with a japanese warrior carrying a sheild and (maybe thius doesnt really make a difference) in EVERY role playing game i have EVER played, smaurai have been prohibited from using shields (for instance in Complete Warrior by Wizards of the coast)

additionally, would they really NEED shields? lots of comanders carried Large iron fans, one reason for which was to block arrows, would a samurai really NEED a shield, wasnt their skill with a sword enough?

anyway to summerise, i dont know, but i just thought i would put in my 2pence worth before everyone els :D

[paty.]

From what I remember reading, believe it was in the Draeger books, the Japanese saw the use of shields as cowardly.

[JCM]

From what I remember reading, believe it was in the Draeger books, the Japanese saw the use of shields as cowardly.

Well, I once heard that your Kamae is your shield, the swords were two handed so it makes sense to look at them that way

[babayaga]

I have never seen in any samurai film anybody who uses a shield. Was it true, even in battles?

The Japanese did not use hand-held shields, but did employ large (man-height) tripod shields which they would set up at the front line and use as cover for archery. Picture something door-size with a hinging leg at the back to prop it upright.

[JamesD]

The Japanese did not use hand-held shields, but did employ large (man-height) tripod shields which they would set up at the front line and use as cover for archery. Picture something door-size with a hinging leg at the back to prop it upright.

I am no expert, but I've seen references to hand held shields being used in ancient Japanese battles, under some kind of Chinese influence, but then falling out of favour... as to why they were considered useful in western cultures, but less so in Eastern ones, I have no idea...

[Max C.]

Japanese didi use shield at certain periods but it soon became obsolete with the advent of defensive and offensive weaponry. Here are some examples with tanko styles armors (recreation from around 650 AD, note the straight swords):

http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052063
http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052065

[taganahan]

hmm its interesting, did fedal japanese carry sheilds into battle, i dont recall seeing any wood cuttings with a japanese warrior carrying a sheild and (maybe thius doesnt really make a difference) in EVERY role playing game i have EVER played, smaurai have been prohibited from using shields (for instance in Complete Warrior by Wizards of the coast)

additionally, would they really NEED shields? lots of comanders carried Large iron fans, one reason for which was to block arrows, would a samurai really NEED a shield, wasnt their skill with a sword enough?

anyway to summerise, i dont know, but i just thought i would put in my 2pence worth before everyone els :D

are you freaking serious man? you actually base your opinion from video games?

~taganahan

[Damien_lucifer]

hmm its interesting, did fedal japanese carry sheilds into battle, i dont recall seeing any wood cuttings with a japanese warrior carrying a sheild and (maybe thius doesnt really make a difference) in EVERY role playing game i have EVER played, smaurai have been prohibited from using shields (for instance in Complete Warrior by Wizards of the coast)

additionally, would they really NEED shields? lots of comanders carried Large iron fans, one reason for which was to block arrows, would a samurai really NEED a shield, wasnt their skill with a sword enough?

anyway to summerise, i dont know, but i just thought i would put in my 2pence worth before everyone els :D


i was just trying to ilustrate a point, im NOT an expert in feudal japan, but i have run into instances of feudal japan in unrelated areas (vidoe games, anime etc) so i was just giving you my input, if it wasnt useful, then well no harm darn, but dont lets make a big deal out of it ehh? :D

[Oroshi]

Tell you what, I'm meeting an authority on Japanese military history later this week. If you're very lucky I might ask him about this... ;)

I believe babayaga has it right though - large tripod missile shields were about as far as it went for samurai. I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember having seen pictures of them used in combination with firearms, with small firing apertures in the shields.

[kanyil]

Not sure how effective kamaes would be against a hail of arrows. Although I am almost sure that iron fans would be lots of help against yari and naginata attacks. :D

Besides, I am not sure the samurais would be the first ones to charge the enemy. Aren't the peasant foot soldiers meant to be the meant "shields"?

[bullet08]

Aren't the peasant foot soldiers meant to be the meant "shields"?

you mean as in wetting the dirt with peasant blood to prevent allegy reaction in samurai during the battle from the dust?

pete

[Damien_lucifer]

Aren't the peasant foot soldiers meant to be the meant "shields"?

Samurai 1 : Stratagist-sama, Stratagist-sama, they are shooting arrows at us, the sky turns dark with a thousand deadly shafts!

Stratagist : Its time to implement my master plan, start operation get-behind-poor-person

:D

[babayaga]

Japanese didi use shield at certain periods but it soon became obsolete with the advent of defensive and offensive weaponry. Here are some examples with tanko styles armors (recreation from around 650 AD, note the straight swords):

http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052063
http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052065

Oh, excellent! Thank you. I specialize in post-Nara period history (Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi), so these pre-Heian photos are great.

I imagine that once the Way of the Horse and Bow became established, hand shields fell out of favor. It might be a chicken and egg thing, however. I'll ask my military historian friend.

-B

[Max C.]

No prob. Pre-heian isn't much my thing I'm much more into Sengoku jidai, but then it is not a period I know much. Anyway check the other pictures on these sets too, many different periods and outfits.

[babayaga]

I have never seen in any samurai film anybody who uses a shield. Was it true, even in battles?

My amateur military historian friend came back with his answer, which was pretty much what I was thinking, which is that yes the Nara period had Chinese-style infantry with hand shields, but during the Heian period the Imperial authority was weakened and the military power base shifted from the central location to the provinces. In the provinces the warbands were smaller and mostly made up of lightly armored horsemen. Thus, the way of the horse and bow -- and precious little ability to wield a shield.

As the samurai class came into being in the Heian period, with this shift, it is strictly true that samurai men never had a use for hand shields, but not true that the Japanese never did.

-B

[dwez]

Last Friday the family and I went to Liverpool Museum, they have an exhibition called 'Treasures of the samurai' we've been to it before. Anyway they ask a member of the audience [this time I did put my hand up but they chose someone else] to come to the front and dress them in a replica suit of samurai armour based on Lord Oda Nobunaga's armour.

Anyway they said something along the lines of the flappy shoulder things were as close to shields as the samurai used as they could move to protect the back and arms when the samurai was firing a bow or weilding a sword. At least that was what they said, I'm sure it's not definitive Japanese mitlitary history but sometimes the littlest things are the clearest.

[Sparv]

Many informations there! Thank you all !

[pgsmith]

From my understanding of Japanese history, Babayaga has the right of it. When the Samurai class began to establish themselves, they were first and foremost horse archers. You cannot use a shield while either riding or shooting. The rest of the armed forces were made up of conscripts using spears. Since none of the major components of the military were in a position to be able to use shields, they basically disappeared.

[Sparv]

You cannot use a shield while either riding or shooting.

True for the shooting part, but the european knights used shields while riding. But it is clear that much training is needed, for the hose and the man.

Heather shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heater_shield)

[Pugtm]

basically from a logical perspective Japanese warfare developed with an emphasis on mobility and speed. Shields seriously hamper such unless they are very small and then they would be useless against the weapons japanes employed.

[Black Knight]

From my limited research into samurai warfare, shields were used, but not the hand-held variety. During the Sengoku Jidai and earlier periods, shields very similar to European pavises were used. These were large shields that archers could stand behind for cover on the battlefield. I believe they were mostly used in sieges. So, in fact, large shields were used in static positions.

As for the first response, I have never seen any evidence of hand-held shields in Japan, from any period. I would like to see it if it's out there.

I think the best answer to why there were no shields in Japanese warfare is cultural preference. Whether they worked or not, they were just not the Japanese style. Much like it was very difficult to convince a Russian infantryman to wear a helmet in WWII, the bushi probably saw shields as cowardly and their use as unbecoming for a warrior.

[Sparv]

Japanese didi use shield at certain periods but it soon became obsolete with the advent of defensive and offensive weaponry. Here are some examples with tanko styles armors (recreation from around 650 AD, note the straight swords):

http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052063
http://www.pbase.com/joanseeuw/image/41052065

Look there Black Knight, Max C did a good job with those pictures.
And for the cowardly thing... Gunmen were many among the Japanese armies in the late 16th century.

I prefer myself the materialistic answer: the samourais were mainly horse archers and fast horse rider (btw Iread in another thread that in battles there were more yaris and naginatas, very efficient in h2h defence) like pgtm and pgsmith said.

[Black Knight]

Not to be too skeptical, but how about archaeological examples or depictions in contemporary art of these hand-held shields? I know that artifcats would be rare if they were indeed made of the thin wood the reenactor's appears to be.

As for the gun, I never suggested that shooting your opponent was considered cowardly. How could the military class orginally consisting of horse-mounted archers think that? :laugh: Note that during the Edo period, the gun was banned, however, as un-samurai-like, however weak that ban actually was in practice...

So it's cowering behind shields that I'm suggesting they didn't like.

[Pugtm]

So it's cowering behind shields that I'm suggesting they didn't like.
It's not that they didn't like it its just that it wasn't feasible. if you encumbered yourself some guy with a naginata would just dance circles around you and get you from behind even with the less used katana. it still is a focus on mobility. And being a very Darwinian environment in battle solders saw what worked and what didn't very quickly. It's actually thanks to composite amour the Japanese invented(they were the first) which was a heck of a lot lighter than wearing a giant steel plate on you. They opted for attack oriented warfare as apposed to Europe's defensive oriented warfare.

[pgsmith]

Note that during the Edo period, the gun was banned, however, as un-samurai-like, however weak that ban actually was in practice...
Sorry to be blunt, but that's an incorrect statement. The ban on firearms was extremely effective. This is why Admiral Perry and his gunboat were so overwhelmingly impressive. The ban was not made because firearms were "un-samurai-like". It was made for the simple reason that the Tokugawa knew from first hand experience just how effective a force trained gunmen could be, and a ban prevented any of the local Daimyo from being able to gather an effective store of arms. Plain and simple military politics, not some "honorable samurai" stuff. :)

[Pugtm]

Sorry to be blunt, but that's an incorrect statement. The ban on firearms was extremely effective. This is why Admiral Perry and his gunboat were so overwhelmingly impressive. The ban was not made because firearms were "un-samurai-like". It was made for the simple reason that the Tokugawa knew from first hand experience just how effective a force trained gunmen could be, and a ban prevented any of the local Daimyo from being able to gather an effective store of arms. Plain and simple military politics, not some "honorable samurai" stuff. :)
It's exactly as pgsmith-san says. The gun is an amazing weapon in that anyone without that much prior training or conditioning can pick it up and use it. Compare that to years it takes to master a sword, spear or bow. With the advent of guns uprisings became really simple since peasants who had no time to train all of a sudden had a very powerful weapon to use. In fact one of the reasons it was labeled dishonorable was it's relative ease of use and the way it killed impersonally. The government understood this and at least in the beginning had a tight lid kept on firearms. But on the other hand guns can fight ships and japan didn't become a seafaring nation till much much later than admiral perry anyways so i have to disagree with pgsmith-san on that point.

[Kenzan]

It's exactly as pgsmith-san says. The gun is an amazing weapon in that anyone without that much prior training or conditioning can pick it up and use it. Compare that to years it takes to master a sword, spear or bow. With the advent of guns uprisings became really simple since peasants who had no time to train all of a sudden had a very powerful weapon to use. In fact one of the reasons it was labeled dishonorable was it's relative ease of use and the way it killed impersonally. The government understood this and at least in the beginning had a tight lid kept on firearms. But on the other hand guns can fight ships and japan didn't become a seafaring nation till much much later than admiral perry anyways so i have to disagree with pgsmith-san on that point.

I'll have to go the middle road on this one. While peasant revolts were pretty much par for the course especially during the middle and late 1800's, I have read two takes on the subject.

The bakufu was afraid of the peasantry acquiring and using guns against them.
This was especially true during the time of the Choshu revolt, which showed that the peasantry could indeed be trained to be quite formidable with firearms, but even still, if I am not mistaken, there were two limitations: one was that there were arquesbuses and primitive flintlocks, and two, the gunpowder was of questionable quality, as the best kind came directly from the Portuguese, which, the Bakufu pretty much controlled. (I think)

So, I'm going to have to go with pgsmith on this one, in that it was more utility than honor that sparked the ban.
(Plus he just really knows his stuff.)
:)

[Aden]

As for the first response, I have never seen any evidence of hand-held shields in Japan, from any period. I would like to see it if it's out there.

I think the best answer to why there were no shields in Japanese warfare is cultural preference. Whether they worked or not, they were just not the Japanese style. Much like it was very difficult to convince a Russian infantryman to wear a helmet in WWII, the bushi probably saw shields as cowardly and their use as unbecoming for a warrior.

There is lots of historical evidence - in particular from tomb haniwa (the little pottery figures that covered the big mound tombs from @250-600 AD) which include model soldiers..

Aden

[Pugtm]

I'll have to go the middle road on this one. While peasant revolts were pretty much par for the course especially during the middle and late 1800's, I have read two takes on the subject.

The bakufu was afraid of the peasantry acquiring and using guns against them.
This was especially true during the time of the Choshu revolt, which showed that the peasantry could indeed be trained to be quite formidable with firearms, but even still, if I am not mistaken, there were two limitations: one was that there were arquesbuses and primitive flintlocks, and two, the gunpowder was of questionable quality, as the best kind came directly from the Portuguese, which, the Bakufu pretty much controlled. (I think)

So, I'm going to have to go with pgsmith on this one, in that it was more utility than honor that sparked the ban.
(Plus he just really knows his stuff.)
:)
im also agreeing with pgsmith-san that it was utility not honor. But i disagree that the ban was the reason perry was so effective.

[Max C.]

I know that artifcats would be rare if they were indeed made of the thin wood the reenactor's appears to be.


It would actualy be enough to stop most common weapons of the time. As for historical accuracy, these reenactors are pretty much accurate on everything. I remember having seen such shield on artworks in one of my japanese firend history book, if that can help. As for archaeological evidence, forget ever finding a shield so complete.

[ZealUK]

The Tokugawa regieme tried a lot of things to neuter the millitary strength of the outside lords and keep them in check, but in outlying provinces they were mostly ignored.

Satsuma had pretty easy access to guns and canon, and in fact surprised the British with their fairly modern costal defences during the "satsu-ei senso" in 1863.

Perry had more modern ships with more powerful armaments. America's show of millitary strength was simply the last straw in a long chain of events leading to the opening of Japan's borders.

[Kenzan]

im also agreeing with pgsmith-san that it was utility not honor. But i disagree that the ban was the reason perry was so effective.

I think it's safe to say he was so effective because he was a strongheaded, unyeilding, ba$tard.
LOL
:D

[Pugtm]

all military commanders have to be ruthless but we are talking about cannon here not military commanders. guns cant fight against a ship.

[Alison2805]

all military commanders have to be ruthless but we are talking about cannon here not military commanders. guns cant fight against a ship.

:silly: hehehe, youre so funny!

[Pugtm]

whats that supposed to mean?:ermm:

[Alison2805]

But on the other hand guns can fight ships and japan didn't become a seafaring nation till much much later than admiral perry anyways so i have to disagree with pgsmith-san on that point.

I find it amusing that youre trying to argue with people who know heaps on Japanese history. I spend two seconds on google and found out that the Japanese had an operating navy during a war with Korea in 1592. Perry was 300 years later. I bet Japan was "seafaring" a long long time prior to that.

As they say, your mind is closed while your mouth is open so Ill shut up now.

[Pugtm]

according to what i was taught was that japan had no deep water war ships and had mainly only galleys and other light water ships. either way a ban on guns would not have had an effect on admiral perry's effectiveness.

[Max C.]

Actualy Japan had made some carrack type ships from the Portuguese models(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_warship_San_Juan_Bautista), but had no need for them during the Edo period as they were mostly close to foreign affairs. Going to Korea from Japan does not necessitate ships that can cross the Pacific (as Perry) as it is not so big a distance to cross. those ships were reinforced with steel though, one of the first world occurence of such a feat if I remember.

[Paikea]

I think it's safe to say he was so effective because he was a strongheaded, unyeilding, ba$tard.
LOL
:DWith rifled cannon.

[Kenzan]

With rifled cannon.

Oh yeah..and then there's that.
:D

[pgsmith]

either way a ban on guns would not have had an effect on admiral perry's effectiveness.
I have to contradict you here. As Perry so succinctly pointed out, the ban on firearms affected far more than simply the Japanese ability to shoot at things. Because firearms were outlawed, there was no innovation and experimentation for well over 200 years in the military weapons department. This meant that the cannons which Perry's war ship possessed far outclassed anything that the Japanese had ever seen, or even imagined.

[Paikea]

I have to contradict you here. As Perry so succinctly pointed out, the ban on firearms affected far more than simply the Japanese ability to shoot at things. Because firearms were outlawed, there was no innovation and experimentation for well over 200 years in the military weapons department. This meant that the cannons which Perry's war ship possessed far outclassed anything that the Japanese had ever seen, or even imagined.Peace through superior firepower, what a concept!

[Pugtm]

I agree but then the ban affeted it in an indirect manner not a direct one.

[Kenzan]

All I know is.....
I really really really like Kendo.


THANK YOU, COMMODORE PERRY!
:D

[Pugtm]

amen selah

[sam.i.am]

My amateur military historian friend came back with his answer, which was pretty much what I was thinking, which is that yes the Nara period had Chinese-style infantry with hand shields, but during the Heian period the Imperial authority was weakened and the military power base shifted from the central location to the provinces. In the provinces the warbands were smaller and mostly made up of lightly armored horsemen. Thus, the way of the horse and bow -- and precious little ability to wield a shield.

As the samurai class came into being in the Heian period, with this shift, it is strictly true that samurai men never had a use for hand shields, but not true that the Japanese never did.

-B

Here's an interesting YouTube video of Gagaku in which performers dance with small shield. Gagaku is an ancient court music genre which collectively refer to music imported from Tang China and Korea as well as Shinto-inspired native music during the Nara-Heian periods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfhKF6jI2A

[babayaga]

Thanks! That's neat. I have plenty of gagaku music, but no clips until now.

-Beth

[Avenger]

Here's a bit of info I found on the tinbe-rochin, which is a shield and short-spear used in traditional Okinawan weapon systems from the Ryukyu Islands. Granted, the art could be considered a bit more Chinese-influenced than related to samurai culture on mainland Japan, but it is an historical instance of shield use in the area. Traditional shields were made of turtle shell, which is something I found interesting. The short-spear is only the length of the forearm, so from the pictures it looks similar to the ancient Greek or Roman shield and shortsword techniques that focused on stabbing over slashing.

http://www.rkagb.com/weapons_frm.htm

Tinbe-Rochin

This weapon is the most glamorous of the Ryukyu system and exudes a feeling of history long gone. The usage however is more akin to a combination of Zulu fighting and European sword and small shield fighting.

The Tinbe (Shield) can be made of various material but is commonly found in vine or cane, metal, or for presentation, in turtle shell. The shield size is generally about 45 cm long and 38 cm wide. The Rochin (Short spear) is cut with the length of the shaft being the same distance as the forearm to the elbow if it is being held in the hand. The spearhead then protrudes from the shaft and can be found in many differing designs. The favoured style has an expanded middle section before the point, which is twisted upon insertion to make the wound larger. The weight of the blade is critical for the spear usage, which is swivelled between the fingers to use both ends, smashing with the butt end and stabbing with the blade end.

The techniques are circular to avoid too much direct contact on the shield and the short spear is predominantly used in an upward stabbing motion, piercing armour under the rib cage, armpits, and throat. Good knees are essential for the kumite along with a proficient understanding of Ukemi. The Ryukyu Kobujutsu syllabus has one kata, which exuded posturing, speed with agility, and balance. The techniques of the Tinbe-Rochin are unique to shield and spear usage. Clearly the origins of design and usage bear little resemblance to agricultural needs.

[Sparv]

Very interresting, the use of shields in martial arts has survived.