Lack of shields in medieval japanese armies

[Zombimode]

With the announcement of STW2 I did some research about japanese warfare out if interest.
In this process a question occured to me again: Why were shields not a used defensive weapon in Japan?

I am puzzled by this. The shield is the earliest defensive system used by mankind universely with the odd ecxeption of Japan.

Bows played a significant role in medieval japanese warfare, so there was no lack of ranged weaponary that could explain the lack of shields.

Usualy I see two recuring types of answers to this question:

1st: Samurai were to "honourable" to used shields.
Besides this would only explain the lack using shields by samurai and not in the japanese warfare in general, this sounds pretty BS to me. Fighting is a life and death situation. Typicaly you make use of every advantages you can get. And shields are only abitrarily more "dishonourable" than bows, armor, polearms...
But oh well, you never know. Sometimes seemingly nonsensial traditions and believes defeat perfectly fine reasoning and logic...

2nd: most japanese weapons were twohanded; so no space for a shield.
This statement confuses the chain of causualty. Saying that because of the lack of shields most japanese weapons were twohanded makes at least as much sense.

So, knowing that the quality of posters here at TWC is greater then on your typical "a samurai with a katana could kill a Star Destroyer with a single vertical slash"-fanboi forum, I decided to ask you guyes.
Is there a plausible answer to explain the lack of shields in medieval japan?

[Katsumoto]

It's a good question that isn't particularly easy to answer.

Large wooden palisade shields were definitely used in sieges to protect soldiers from arrows and gunfire, gunners and archers using them as cover to fire back at the defenders. As for the individuals, I presume the Japanese warrior preferred the power and control that came with two handed weapons and many samurai would've been very proficient with the spear, katana and that anyway, which would have made the shield pointless since a skillful swordsman would be able to block and deflect attacks anyway. I remember even reading about an art dedicated to knocking arrows out of the air.

But I think, like you said, honour played a major part in it. Ideally samurai warfare was about the ashigaru doing the major fighting while the samurai found other samurai to fight individually. A shield in that case would've been considered almost cheating, since instead of using your skill with the blade to defend yourself you could just cower behind a shield.

[Rapax]

2nd: most japanese weapons were twohanded; so no space for a shield.
This statement confuses the chain of causualty. Saying that because of the lack of shields most japanese weapons were twohanded makes at least as much sense.

Why would it confuse the chain of causality? If a form of warfare develops that is based on the mastery of two-handed weapons then the issue of a shield shouldn't even come up.

This I believe is the likeliest explanation for the upper-class warriors (Samurai) since they started out as horse archers, an activity that precludes the use of a shield and generally employed two handed weapons, such as bow, spear and sword (which could be used one-handed but was primarily a back up and status symbol anyway). Their armor was generally considered sufficient against arrows and blows, so frankly in their warrior culture they would not have had a need for a shield.

I think a large part of this "anomaly" was due to the geographical isolation of Japan which means that once a certain culture of warfare had developed, there were no "outside barbarians" to challenge it and hence no need to change and adapt. I'm sure that if Samurai had faced e.g. Frankish Knights in battle, they might have had to rethink their concepts somewhat.

[konny]

It really depends on the tactics used. European soldiers developed such a passion for "shield fighting" because those were an important part of their tactics, be it a phalanx, a shield wall, or lance riding. Later, with new tactics, the shield was given up in Europe too. In the 16th Century the armies were composed horsemen armed with firearms, pikemen and missles - none would have been carrying a shield into battle, save for occasional bucklers.

[SigniferOne]

In the 16th Century the armies were composed horsemen armed with firearms, pikemen and missles - none would have been carrying a shield into battle, save for occasional bucklers.

What about the Spanish conquistadores, and the Rodeleros who of course are a big exception to this rule?

[KaRoU23]

It really depends on the tactics used. European soldiers developed such a passion for "shield fighting" because those were an important part of their tactics, be it a phalanx, a shield wall, or lance riding. Later, with new tactics, the shield was given up in Europe too. In the 16th Century the armies were composed horsemen armed with firearms, pikemen and missles - none would have been carrying a shield into battle, save for occasional bucklers.

Exactly!!!! We must also take into account that the shield was used too for bashing the opponent...

[Elmar]

Not to mention cultural and doctrinal reasons.
Aggression has long been the cornerstone of Japanese military thinking on all levels. This caused the Japanese to pretty much abandon the use of shields, a defensive tool at heart. Perfectly reasonable if you wish to maximise the offensive spirit and capability of your forces.

[Katsumoto]

Especially considering Japanese warfare was more about mobility and outmanevouring your enemy. Like Rapax said samurai were originally horse archers, moving around to their enemy's weakpoints and firing their arrows, and their armour was designed for that, it wasn't heavy plate like European knights (metal only began to be used for armour during the Sengoku period). A shield would hinder this need for mobility.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Were the armour designs used particularly effective against arrows perhaps? That would make a shield unnecessary.

[Copperknickers II]

Were the armour designs used particularly effective against arrows perhaps? That would make a shield unnecessary.

They were more or less designed exlcusively for defense against bows, yes.

[Mightypeon]

Potential reasons:
1: This may sound stupid and perhaps racist, but did the relativly small physical size coupled with sophisticated armour of the Japanese make 2 handed weapons more desireable, since there likely were troubles in reliably piercing sophisticated Japanese armour with the available one handed weaponry? From my own limited experience, f.e. Kendo makes quite a point in "maximizing your effective size". In the same vein, I am not aware of japanese maces or Warhammers (which are basically both one or twohanded anti armour weaponry) beeing employed on a large scale.
2: The shield may have been seen as a dangerous equalizer for rebbelious peasants etc. A bit like perhaps crossbows were seen in Europe.

[Manco]

I believe most iterations of samurai armour were basically a type of lamellar, forms of which were known throughout Eurasia. The Byzantines and the Rus used it quite extensively and still used all manners of shields, so I doubt that the Japanese version was somehow much more superior than their's.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Didn't they use bamboo a lot in their armours pre- Sengoku Jidai? I'm just making this up as I go admittedly, but could that be effective in protecting from missiles? In Europe there were some types of cloth armour that were very good in protecting against arrows, but not so good in close combat.

[Rapax]

Didn't they use bamboo a lot in their armours pre- Sengoku Jidai? I'm just making this up as I go admittedly, but could that be effective in protecting from missiles? In Europe there were some types of cloth armour that were very good in protecting against arrows, but not so good in close combat.

I'm sure Samurai armor was very effective against arrows as it would have been designed to counter that threat specifically. I believe in one book it was described that a Samurai could end up "looking like a porcupine", with several arrows lodged in his armor while not critically wounded by them.

[Manco]

I'm sure Samurai armor was very effective against arrows as it would have been designed to counter that threat specifically. I believe in one book it was described that a Samurai could end up "looking like a porcupine", with several arrows lodged in his armor while not critically wounded by them.

Well, any type of relatively heavy armour was capable of that. I think there's even a quote from the crusades describing a simple gambeson having a similar effect.

[Manco]

I'm sure Samurai armor was very effective against arrows as it would have been designed to counter that threat specifically. I believe in one book it was described that a Samurai could end up "looking like a porcupine", with several arrows lodged in his armor while not critically wounded by them.

Well, any type of relatively heavy armour was capable of that.
I think there's even a quote from the crusades describing a simple gambeson having a similar effect. But at the very least Lamellar and mail were capable of the same, while still being used in conjunction with shields

[Rapax]

I didn't say they weren't, just that Samurai armor was designed to be effective against arrows, while European warriors had to deal with other threats on top of that. The question wasn't whether Samurai armor was more effective against arrows than what was used in Europe.

[jo the greek]

I didn't say they weren't, just that Samurai armor was designed to be effective against arrows, while European warriors had to deal with other threats on top of that. The question wasn't whether Samurai armor was more effective against arrows than what was used in Europe.

Were Samurai bows strong bows!!

Some types of armor can deflect or stop arrows but are really weak against other types of threat

[Manco]

I didn't say they weren't, just that Samurai armor was designed to be effective against arrows, while European warriors had to deal with other threats on top of that. The question wasn't whether Samurai armor was more effective against arrows than what was used in Europe.

Oh yeah, I just meant that good armour could hardly have been the main reason for a lack of shields, as similar armours were in use on the continent in combination with shields.

i remember reading something about japanese history, and the kanana. The author attributes the weapons strength as one of the reasons they didn't have shields. In western militaries the quality of steel was generally much lower, meaning that a sword on sword hit could smash one of the blades. (something that many historical accounts record) In japan their folded steel meant that swords could hit swords and you didn't have to worry so much about deflecting the force of the blow, so the blades would hold better.

Most of that is myth. In fact the quality of iron ore in Japan was actually worse than in Europe or the Middle East. The famed (and often exaggerated) Japanese craftsmanship was born out of necessity, they needed to fold the steel so many times just to get all the impurities out and achieve a blade similar in quality to Western blades.
The katana by itself isn't exactly a special weapon, it's just a curved blade.

[gambit]

The "it was dishonorable" factor can't play into it. While, obv, the honor tradition is the most prominent in japanese culture this didn't stop many samurai from resorting to dishonorable actions, it was just their established guideline. Plus honor wouldn't play such a universal factor in their large scale warfare, I'd mark it down more to the aggressive based warfare the Japanese used, armor was just something to wear and protect, having a strong offense was always a priority making two-handed weapons favorable. letting shields get in the way of that was probably seen as 'wasteful' since it hindered the individuals offensive capability