Shields?

[Tenchimuyo]

A quick question. Did Japanese warriors ever used shields?

[FwSeal]

VERY early Japanese warriors did - hand-held shields have been found dating from about 1600 years ago. I haven't read too much about this in particular, but I seem to think they were more or less gone by 650-700 AD. On the other hand, the O-sode were basically shields, albiet built into the armor and not held.

[solypsist]

one of the reasons shields became obsolete (and I'm just using logic, here) was due to the high efficiency of the weaponry. If you've picked up a katana, you no doubt noticed how light and easy to handle it was. Thus shields were rendered ineffective since a Japanese swordsman could easily maneuver around it. A European shield was okay since the Euro weapons were much heavier and thus could be blocked more easily.
I'm sure there are other reasons.

[Ieyasu]

Seal, would that have anything to do with the advent of a superior sword... the focus going more toward the blade (meaning, sharper, better tempered steel versus what may be almost construed as weapons of bludgeoning)?

The ancient sword period (Chokuto or Ken period) which supposedly lasted until 900 AD was primarily made up of smiths from China or Korea, and the swords were mostly straight... but I don't recall them requiring two hands. When were shields used in the Chinese books?

Oh, one other question... when was the Daito (long sword) introduced to Samurai use?

[FwSeal]

I have read that the reason most often given for the shield being dropped was the shift towards archery as the primary weapon of the Japanese warrior. At the same time, as I mentioned, it would seem that they simply made the shield part of their armor - in the form of the o-sode. Those distinctive shoulder guards were designed to drop down to protect the vunerable armpit/upper torso area when the samurai drew his bowstring. The same held for when the samurai used his sword.
As for the distinctive curved long sword, western expert Ian Bottemley wrote that while noone is really sure when the katana as we think of it was perfected, by the 10th Century swords with all the classic hallmarks of the 'samurai' sword were being produced.

[Tenchimuyo]

Wow!Interesting.

[Devil_Hanzo]

I don't quite understand this argument. What better way is there to defend against arrows than a shield? It gives cover, you can move it around quickly so it will continue to give you cover, even if the arrows come from a different direction, and you can carry it with you when you start moving again. Of course you can't use a bow and a shield at the same time, but one would think that for anyone with a close-combat weapon, a shield would still be a great advantage, and even archers could carry light shields with them. Especially for ashigaru, who didn't have the training to wield a sword in defence like a samurai could, I'd think a shield would be a good solution. After all, it must be a lot easier to stop a sword with a shield than with another sword (or even worse; a spear), even if you've hardly used a shield before. Maybe the shield will be damaged after a short while, but until then it will have helped.

I really can't see any logical reason for not using them at all, unless it was eventually considered cowardly, or something along those lines.

[clockwork_orange]

Two-handed swords like katanas, nodachi, or European greatswords were used when armor technology improved to the point that shields were no longer really necessary or the tradeoff for a better weapon made the loss of extra protection worthwhile.

One more thing. What solypsist said about European swords being heavier and clumsier than katanas isn't necessarily true. I had the chance to actually hold some Japanese and European swords from the 16 century and the European swords were just as light and easy to handle as the Japanese ones. In fact, one of the biggest swords on display, a six foot tall greatsword, weighed less than four pounds.

[Devil_Hanzo]

Well, how much did the Japanese swords weigh, and what kind of European swords are we talking about?

[ShaiHulud]

Maybe this applies...

When the Japanese engineers were designing the (original) Zero they asked the pilots if they would prefer things like armored cockpits, protection for fuel tanks, etc, or if they wanted it kept light, maneuverable, and better offensively. The pilots voted for the latter.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

[Contubernalis]

I think a role was also played by the concept of war as conceived by the samurai. The concept of dozens of individual duels reduces the risk of not being able to move out of the way of a blow/arrow. Maybe by the time the individual was subsumed into the collective tactics, the "no shield" idea was accepted as the proper way. Japan, to my western eyes, has a social need for stability, and stable societies formulate rules and resist change. (I speak in very general terms.)
I read that the development of the Tachi was c. 700A.D. I also heard the strength and flexibility of the blade and sharpness of the edge rendered most shields useless (you'd have to have such a thick, heavy shield that it would hamper your movement).
As for ashis, they are the carpet milords walk across to do battle. I don't think until the Rise of the Gun that anyone really exploited the utility of the Ashigaru, on the Roman Legion model (organized, well-equipped, etc.), and didn't fret over their deaths, however preventable.
Remember, the Way of the Samurai is found in Death.

Questions, comments, corrections, laughter?

[Minagawa Daimon]

heres my two kokus, a samurai doesnt have a shiled because a shield would just be sliced in two by a katana.

[Tenchimuyo]

Yes, it would seem weired to see a samurai charging up at you with a katana in one hand and a shield in another.

------------------
A great warrior never reveal his true skills....

[agios_katastrof]

As far as I know, the samurai didn't use shields because of the two-handed nature of the Japanese weapons, and not because the shields would be useless. And obviously, once the firearms were introduced, the point of the shield was mostly lost.

And sorry, but a katana doesn't cut through a typical medieval shield. Katanas are excellent weapons, and they can shear through your ribs and half your heart, but the popular armor slicing views of the katana is mostly fiction. Contemporary European weapons did a far better job of defeating armor and shield. That's not to say that a katana isn't a great weapon, because it is, but it's effects are just too often exaggerated.

And I'm agreed with clockwork_orange entirely. Katanas are indeed fast weapons. But there are faster weapons (gladius, rapier, jian, etc.) I hear that a rapier vs katana will almost always result in victory for the rapier. But the katana is a certainly superior weapon of war than a rapier. And a gladius, despite its tremendous speed and agility, was still used with a shield, and quite effectively so.


[This message has been edited by agios_katastrof (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Devil_Hanzo]

Were rapiers ever used for anything but fencing practice and duels?

And what is a gladius, exactly?

[Contubernalis]

Ha! I beat Mariko to answering "what is a gladius"!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
A gladius is the traditional sword of the Roman Legion, originally from Spain. With a blade about 2"W and 18-21"L, it survived in various forms throughout the Republic and Empire. Did you see "Gladiator"? The swords in that are more-or-less Gladiuses (gladii? Latin speakers?).
I have never heard of a rapier being used in battle, but I'm sure someone will correct me. My impression was it was a courtly weapon for fencing/duels. You know, used by overly Romantic men in tights.. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[agios_katastrof]

Yes, rapiers are specialized dueling weapons, hence my remark about a katana being a far superior weapon of war.

A gladius is a Roman short sword. An obvious weapon of war. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Devil_Hanzo]

But wouldn't the somewhat limited reach of the gladius make it necessary to take more risks (need to get closer to your enemies)? Is that why they needed those large shields? Or is the shield size of Roman legionaries (sp?) often exaggerated? According to a (probably not historically correct) movie about Shaka (the Zulu), the Zulus used large shields to push the enemies' longer, more unwieldy spears aside, while they stabbed them with their shorter, stronger spears. Does anyone know if this was actually done, and if similar tactics were used by the Romans?

And although I'm straying quite far off-topic by now; how good were Arab swords? I remember reading that swords made in Damascus were stronger even than the ones made in Toledo, Spain (with my almost non-existing knowledge of swords, I wouldn't know exactly how strong that is). How would those swords, or the gladius, for that matter, measure up to a Katana? I'm not just talking about strength, but generally how good they were in battle.

Hope no one's annoyed by the "off-topicness" of this, but comparing the Katana to other swords isn't completely off-topic, after all...

[Contubernalis]

Yes, the technique as I understand it was to protect with the shield and stab/slash with the gladius. IMO you can divide Roman enemies into two types: (gosh, I can sense the rebuttals descending!)
1. Against enemies with similar length swords, you'd use the above technique and the superior discipline and armour of the Legion to win.
2. Against longswords (did someone say Gauls and Germans?), get in close where they don't have room to swing and gut 'em. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I believe that comparng the katana with the gladius is not a good idea: the mindsets were totally different. But I would pick a katana in a duel over a gladius: it's just better made and more flexible in use and in its metal strength.
As for the Damascus v. Toledo debate, I don't know. But those Syrian blades sure are beautiful.

A question of my own on Shields: I just watched _Heaven and Earth_ and the musketeers had these metal shields/firing rests. Is this just movie-magic? I have never seen a picture of these.

[The Black Ship]

Depictions of firing gunners often show them entrenched behind a barricade made of bundled bamboo/reeds/wood propped so as to be perpendicular to the ground. They almost always have the look of a mobile barrier, so they can be re-positioned as needed.

I have a feeling if Roman and Japanese armies somehow could actually meet on the battlefield that it would be the free-wheeling Japanese armies that would be adapting to Roman discipline and formation tactics http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif A long sharp sword is great against one man, but against the frontal aspect of a shield-wielding, disciplined cohort?

Oh...and I'm talking a early empire/late republic Roman army, not one of those rag-tag armies of the 3/4th century a.d.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Comparing a 16th (or 11th at the earliest) century army to a 1st century one doesn't really seem like a viable proposition to me. Even Caesar might have found himself in serious trouble if confronted by arquebuses. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Also, while a frontal charge by samurai against a legion in full formation would end in disaster, the mounted Heian period bushi might well enjoy some success with a long-range attack. The BIG yumi longbows of the period could have been capable of penetrating wooden Roman shields, and a cavalry charge will absolutely shatter the auxilia the Romans used as their primary ranged attack unit.

(He's done it again - we're OT! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif)

------------------
"I listened for response and heard only praise."
- Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil

[agios_katastrof]

Oh, boy, are we OT. Oh, well. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Well, I originally brought up the gladius, because it was speculated in another post beforehand, that perhaps the samurai did not use shields, due to the speed of their weapons, with which, the shield was easily circumvented. My point (somewhat occluded at this point), was that the speed of the weapon does not necessarily make the shield useless. As far as I know, only jointed weapons (e.g., flails), can easily circumvent a shield (well, you can always chop through it with a halberd http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ) .

As for the Arabian swords vs Japanese swords, well, as far as I know, I think Japanese/Chinese (and perhaps Korean) blades were differentially tempered, whereas the middle eastern swords were not. That is, the Asian blades have ultra hard edges and points, and soft centers, allowing both strength and sharpness of the blade. Please do correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Arabs had such blades. True Damascus steel also mixes the hard and the soft, but I think the distribution was uniform (again, stretching my limits of feeble knowledge here). On the same note, I think the Oriental blades would beat the gladius easily as far as metallurgy was concerned. The gladius was a mass manufactured weapon of war (a la m16), designed to do the job, quickly, and without much hoopla. The Japanese sword traditions, are obviously somewhat deeper. And metallurgy sciences must have progressed quite a bit during the centuries as well.

Oh, and guns & barricades. I recall seeing the palisades used with guns in Kagemusha. And it has been said that Kurosawa is relatively meticulous with his research.



[This message has been edited by agios_katastrof (edited 03-12-2001).]

[Tenchimuyo]

There was once a weapon dealer who sold weapons and shields. One day before a crowd of people, he started to tell them how well made his weapons and shields are.
"Come and check out my spears people! The strongest spear there is, it can pierce even the most durable shield!"
After he finished showing off his spear, the dealer brought out a shield and said to the crowd.
"Check out this shield, it is the strongest ever made, the best there is, no weapon can pierce through it."
At that moment, an old man asked him, "So what if I use your spear to thrust your shield, what would happen?" The dealer was suddently stunned by this question and he couldn't answer it. So the crowd all left as the dealer stands there embarassed.

------------------
A great warrior never reveal his true skills....

[Contubernalis]

I knew about the wooden shields/palisades, but I would swear that the gunners' shields I saw in _Heaven and Earth_ were metal. I wouldn't think that the Japanese would have used that much metal to protect mere ashis, even if they did have the new wartoy.
Of course, I also used to think that Samurai armor was not made with metal... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[clockwork_orange]

This topic seems kind of dead, but I found something I thought I should mention. In one of the 35 articles on swordsmanship Musashi wrote, he mentions the use of a shield.

"… if he were in a battle crowded with samurai, he would hold his shield in his left hand … he will feel that sword inordinately heavy. Only when a man has experience and is accustomed to wielding a sword with one hand [can he excel in battle]."

Whether shields were regularly used by samurai or Musashi was just advocating its use is up to debate.

[Irving]

here's what i know.

Japanese swords were so well built that they didn't need a shield to deflect and block and opponents blows. the japanese swords were 'folded' that is the metal was folded over and over making hundreds and even thousands of layers. This made them extremely sharp and strong. I think european swords were not so well built and a strong cut from an opponent might break or shatter the sword while a katana or something would have no problem parrying the blow.

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Tone]

Irving:

I've done some recent reading on this. European swords weren't prone to breaking or shattering because they were cooled relatively slowly to make them malleable. The scene in the film Henry V at the battle of Agincourt where a dropped sword sticks in the ground and wobbles all over the place is quite accurate of the flexibility of European swords. This flexibility to avoid breakage involves a trade-off on the hardness and therefore the sharpness of the edge. What Japanes swordsmiths did apart from folding the metal was to put clay in varying degrees of thickness along the blade allowing them to control the speed of cooling on different parts of the blade. Result: an incredibly hard and sharp edge that wouldn't shatter because it is supported by a flexible rear edge. The marks of the clay leave a wavy line (help with name someone) down the blade that can clearly be seen on Japanese swords. (Swords are highly prized for the aesthetic beauty of this pattern.)

[Irving]

wasn't the sword at some time while it was being crafted covered in clay and heated or something? or am i wrong.

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Brown Wolf]

European swords where very effective.
they could easily shatter samurai armor
especially the old broadsword

------------------
"Failure is not an option"

[Irving]

still..... samurai armour was way more effective than european armour.... and if i had to place a bet on samurai vs european swordsman..... it would be samurai all the way

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[War Writer]

I remember hearing on a programme that the Samurai Sword was also used a a sort of a shield; I think it was the certain angles in which each Samurai would have to go through everyday.

How many times does a Samurai need to train everyday; I've forgotten?

[agios_katastrof]

How was samurai armour more effective than european counterparts? Depicted in Kagemusha, some of the Japanese warlords in contact with the west begain wearing european armor for themselves. The best of the katanas would have little effect on european plate. Most of the euroepean swords weren't much better against plate, either. The fact that europeans moved away from swords to axes/maces/flails/hammers, whereas the Japanese did not, is a simple attestment to such.

And as aforementioned, oriental swords were differentially tempered, leaving an ultra hard edge, while retaining a soft core, whereas the european weapons were more uniform, and softer overall. This is a reflection of the type of armor and fighting styles that the regional blades faced, rather than any design superiority.

[War Writer]

I know it was broadcast over in America but did any of you ever watch 'Desieve Weapons' I think it was shown on the History Channel over there.

Over here it was shown on BBC2 ages back (like 1996) I think.

They had a whole episode (hat's right) on the Samurai sword and it's effectiveness on beating back the invasion of the Mongal Armys. It went into great detail on the way of Samurai.

Just wanted to know if anyone saw it?

[Irving]

i find the Japanese armour was mcuh better. It was flexible and could stop stuff about like chain mail. I could be easily repaired. I think a samurai could easily defeat a European in armour simply on mobility..and SKILL. Should armour really be a shield that is so heavy that it hampers fighting ability??

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Tone]

War Writer: Very good series, missed the one on Samurai swords, saw some good ones on the Longbow etc. though.

[Hosakawa Tito]

War Writer I did catch that program on Samurai swords and it was excellent.I never realized what a sacred process it was.There are separate craftsman for the hilt and scabbard too,never thought about that,I figured it was all made by the same person.
The demonstrations of the sword in use were amazing.I couldn't believe my eyes when that samurai sliced through a piece of bamboo that was almost the size of a mans upper leg like it wasn't even there.That program is a must see for anyone interested in the samurai arts.
Tito

[agios_katastrof]

Irving,

An European knight clad in plate is not the clumsy impaired that you may have been lead to believe. There are recorded instances of knights in plate doing somersaults. The heavy plate that you may see in museums are mostly ceremonial, or tournament armor, and not really for combat. As a matter of fact, plate actually distributes weight better than chain mail, or other flexible armor, which puts most of the weight on the shoulders. And mail and other flexible armor, provide little protection against axes, maces, flails, hammers and polearms, which were the prevalent weapons in Europe at the time.

And what is this thing about difference in skill? An European knight was trained since boyhood. Unsubstantiated blanket statements are rarely justified..


[This message has been edited by agios_katastrof (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Brown Wolf]

are we still doing this?

lol

------------------
"Failure is not an option"

[Tenchimuyo]

It seems some people have gone from the use of shield in ancient Japan to the weapons of knights in Europe.

What a international leap! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
A great warrior never reveal his true skills....

[This message has been edited by Tenchimuyo (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Ii Naomasa]

I’ve been away from this thread for far too long. From shields to swords to armor… Oh well, although it continues the semi-off topic discussion, I’ll toss in my two cents:

I am far from an expert on the subject, but from my own research over the years, I must humbly agree with those that are defending European armor. It seems that nearly everyone in the course of exploring armor over the ages begins to favor Asian, especially Japanese, armor over European armor. I wonder if part of that is the disillusionment most Westerners experience with knights as they grow up, while the samurai is still glorified in Western eyes. It’s also all too easy to compare knights and samurai from different periods as well, and such often causes very biased answers.

This is a topic that one could ramble on quite forever on (and, as everyone knows, I do that with simple topics http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif ), so I shall try to keep myself brief (for me) and just make some points. I’ll be willing to clarify anything if someone wants to refute something.

As agios_katastrof points out, mail hauberks and coats were actually more tiring and tedious to wear than later plate mail. Much like the classic o-yoroi box-like armor worn by Japanese warriors from a little before the 11th century until it was phased out by better designs, chain mail rested completely on one’s shoulders, which was both awkward and heavy after awhile. Even then, I would say that the shirt-like form of most European designs was more agile in general than the squared-off, bulky designs of Japanese bushi (and, mind you, 12th century Japan is one of my favorite periods in that country’s history). The o-yoroi (which, at the time was just called ‘yoroi’, a rather dull name of ‘armor’) wasn’t meant for too much walking around and ground combat; it was the armor of someone who would ride horseback (and therefore, have part of the weight supported by the legs and saddle) and fire bows. It incorporated anti-arrow shielding, while the European armor relied on its bulk and the addition of a shield (really strong bows were still a century or two off at this point in Europe).

By the 14th century, it had become obvious to nearly everyone in both in Europe and Japan that having armor that tightened at the waist (and therefore, distributed the weight between the shoulders and hips) was much more comfortable and could be worn for longer periods. Even in the 13th century, both sides saw attempts to improve the armor, resulting in many different styles (to many to compare here lest I put everyone to sleep). In many cases, armor became actually lighter and more flexible than in previous generations because of better forging and armor making techniques (and even when the actual weight of armor increased, its better distribution didn’t make it seem dramatically so). 16th century European battlefield plate mail was incredibly crafted for its time and was more like an exoskeleton than bulky pieces of metal outerwear. Such pieces allowed their wearers to mount horses (there are even accounts of leaping mountings), climb ladders, and fight pitched fights with almost the same mobility as a samurai. Remember that while European armor was heavier than Japanese, Europeans were also a bit larger and the diets of their nobles were filled with the ingredients to make brawnier individuals.

Despite my attempts, I’m still rambling. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif Although it took place centuries before the classic 16th century match-up that most people envision when saying ‘samurai vs. knight’, the Crusades are a good example of what happened when the European mentality of armor met the somewhat-similar-to-Japanese mentality of lighter armor and slashing blades. The natives of the Middle East were amazed at how Europeans could absorb arrows with their chain-over-padded armor and large and were doubly frustrated when their slashing swords of which they were truly masters of would rarely cut into the Europeans’ chain-covered hides. Straight up, even fairly primitive European armor was defeating talented warriors who relied on skill and speed. Of course, the Muslim forces learned tactics around such, including using the very reason they didn’t wear heavy armor (the climate) against the Europeans.

Given cooler climates, Europeans could surround themselves in armor, while both the Muslims and the Japanese developed armor around the fact that their lands are hot (and in the later case, very humid) during prime war seasons. Comparing a good piece of 16th century armor worn by a wealthy enough warrior noble from both Japan and Europe shows in both cases ruggedness and flexibility. The first glaring difference is that the European armor, short of some small holes for armpits, inside of elbows, back of knees and a few other joints, covers the knight from head to toe. The samurai, however, has an exposed face (menpo face guards weren’t worn often and the most common that were worn just covered the cheeks and chin), feet, inner legs, parts of the arms (depending on the material and design of the kote), and depending on the style of armor and whether or not it had guards there, the shoulder. The limited number of places for a samurai to get a clean, decisive hit puts him at a disadvantage, and that’s before we consider the European’s arsenal of dedicated armor-piercing weaponry (I do not mention the smashing/warping variety, as I think Samurai armor would actually hold up well to mace style crushing instruments) compared to the samurai’s arsenal (which the sword would have been one of his latter choices in battletorn 16th century Japan). I would give the yari (which would have been the frontline weapon most likely) the best chance of penetrating the European armor, but the slashing weapons that the samurai would employ following such often required finding a weak point in armor. Some European plate mail game you less than a square foot total of vulnerable space. If a samurai weren’t so impetuous, he very well could wait out the battle and exhaust the European first (especially if they fought in Japan’s climate), but that would mean relying on avoidance and luck for quite a bit of time…and where samurai aggressiveness is legendary today, it would have been a shortcoming in such a fight.

Again, as agios points out, it is a general misconception that a samurai trained endlessly for battle while a knight did little to better himself. One does not go through life knowing that you may have to fight and not practice as best as you can for it. Putting on either type of armor without any practice was asking for trouble on the battlefield. Children of knights learned how to wear armor and use weapons almost as young as samurai children. Remember that lower-ranking knights, like low-ranking samurai, would be called upon to fight without a choice and early advancement was easier on the battlefield than currying favor in courts (after all, much like the adage about money, it took some prestige to gain more prestige). A skilled knight was a tough opponent and there were many such warriors in Europe.

Samurai adoped European armor into their own designs for two main reasons: The first was that European armor was as exotic and ‘cool’ to the samurai as their armor looks to eyes used to plate mail knights and second, because European armor stood a better chance against the weapon the Europeans brought with them, the gun. This is supposedly one of the reasons Nobunaga favored his.

I actually don’t like these comparisons (despite my lack of brevity here might indicate) because they often assume too much, are based on biased observations and assumptions, and incorporate way too many ‘what ifs’? Comparing the virtues of the armor itself is one thing, but once you start putting levels of skill and terrain/climate effects and everything, you open yourself up to a lot of possibilities.

I apologize for what might be an arduous read for many. I just found too many points to cover and hopefully my humble ramblings haven’t put the entire forum to sleep

[This message has been edited by Ii Naomasa (edited 04-11-2001).]

[agios_katastrof]

Whoa. Rather impressive brain dump. Uhm, yes, that about sums it up. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Irving]

impressive.... but my money would still be on the samurai

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[War Writer]

A lot of words on that bit also!