Samurai with Shields

Ok, this probably has been asked over and over but... why didn't Japanese Samurai use personal man-portable shields? In Europe, the Romans used their shields for all sorts of formations. Later in the Middle Ages, even chainmailed knights used shields. One big advantage of a shield is that it can block arrows while only adding a little bit of weight (since you only need to have the shield face the general direction of the arrows).
 
Ok, this probably has been asked over and over but... why didn't Japanese Samurai use personal man-portable shields? In Europe, the Romans used their shields for all sorts of formations. Later in the Middle Ages, even chainmailed knights used shields. One big advantage of a shield is that it can block arrows while only adding a little bit of weight (since you only need to have the shield face the general direction of the arrows).
Because Samurai primarily were not swordsmen like they are often portrayed as. Samurai were more often horse archers or used polearms. Swords are sidearms; more a symbol of power and not battlefield weapons. Using a sword when you have the option to use a polearm is like using a handgun when you have the option of a machine gun.
 
Ok, this probably has been asked over and over but... why didn't Japanese Samurai use personal man-portable shields? In Europe, the Romans used their shields for all sorts of formations. Later in the Middle Ages, even chainmailed knights used shields. One big advantage of a shield is that it can block arrows while only adding a little bit of weight (since you only need to have the shield face the general direction of the arrows).

In a way, they kind of did. Notice the large thick boxy flaps on the shoulders of Samurai armor? Those were meant to partially serve a substitute for shield protection while still allowing the warrior to use a bow or other two-handed weapon, especially when on horseback. While shields are great for mass formations, many times thats not what your Samurai would be deployed in.
 
A couple videos you might find enlightening:
If you want more information, I really would check out this guy's channel. Phenomenal content.
 
Because metallic lamellar armor provided excellent protection against the weapons they faced thus no shields were needed.

Chain mail and gambeson by contrast offered poor protection against mace, hammer and picks. A shield would be very good to have.
 
Ok, this probably has been asked over and over but... why didn't Japanese Samurai use personal man-portable shields? In Europe, the Romans used their shields for all sorts of formations. Later in the Middle Ages, even chainmailed knights used shields. One big advantage of a shield is that it can block arrows while only adding a little bit of weight (since you only need to have the shield face the general direction of the arrows).

As others have basically said the Samurai had little need for them. Shoulder guards, as well as the fact the armor is fairly thick itself with cloth underneath, meant that for the most part samurai did not need shields, but they still were used by basic infantry.
 
Alongside what the above have mentioned, Japanese armies traditionally liked wood/leather etc lattice like stuff to carry even prior to firearms because they could be set up very quickly as makeshift picket lines and redeployed easily too. I can't remember the name for it off the top of my head though.

They also had stuff like the Horo which is amazing.
 
Ok, this probably has been asked over and over but... why didn't Japanese Samurai use personal man-portable shields? In Europe, the Romans used their shields for all sorts of formations. Later in the Middle Ages, even chainmailed knights used shields. One big advantage of a shield is that it can block arrows while only adding a little bit of weight (since you only need to have the shield face the general direction of the arrows).

Japan was already covered but, as far as the Europeans are involved, this is not quite correct. While the knights initially (up to approximately XII century) were using the big shields, their sizes, with the improved limbs protection, had been steadily dwindling all the way down to a buckler (or no shield at all), which was absolutely useless against the arrows.

BTW, it does not look like the main purpose of the initial big shields of the knights was to protect against the arrows: while on a horseback, Knight simply could not held it in front of himself as a protection against crossbow bolts or over his head as a protection against the arrows shot at a high angle. The main purpose was to defend against opponent’s lance, hence the later Boucher style small shield with a special support for a lance. Not to mention that in a most of the continental Europe the archers and even crossbowmen were not numerous enough to became a critical factor in shaping knight’s equipment.

The big shields, pavisas, had been retained only by the special types of an infantry, mostly the shooting infantry like crossbow men and those with the early types of the firearms, as a protection against opponent’s fire: these troops were not expected to fight hand to hand combat. The infantry with the pole arms did not use them at all.

Ditto for the XV century depictions/reconstructions the French, Spain’s and German men-at-arms equipment and even the Mamelukes of the same period: no shields or very small ones. Not that a shield could be used simultaneously with a two-hand sword.

upload_2019-4-13_14-35-30.jpeg


upload_2019-4-13_14-36-38.jpeg


upload_2019-4-13_14-37-17.jpeg


upload_2019-4-13_14-38-10.jpeg

BTW, the archer-heavy warfare of the CA/Middle East used rather small shields that were useful in a hand to hand combat but hardly so as a protection against the arrows. If anything, the big shields (Scandinavian style) used in the Eastern Europe (specifically, Rus) during the early MA had been dwindling in size over the centuries of a constant contact with the neighboring nomadic archers and practically completely disappeared in the period following the Mongolian conquest. The 1st picture below - X -XI century, 2nd - XV - XVI:
upload_2019-4-13_14-51-34.png


upload_2019-4-13_14-51-52.jpeg


(Hopefully, I did not exceed the pictures quota but it is better to see once than to read 10 times).
 
If anything, the big shields (Scandinavian style) used in the Eastern Europe (specifically, Rus) during the early MA had been dwindling in size over the centuries of a constant contact with the neighboring nomadic archers and practically completely disappeared in the period following the Mongolian conquest.

Well, I might have gotten the use of European knight shields wrong, but they still existed
 
Well, I might have gotten the use of European knight shields wrong, but they still existed

The questions are “when” and did they had anything to do with a protection against arrows. The big shields still had been around in XII (not too many archers in the continental Europe and, as I said, hardly useful against a direct crossbow shot because they were covering a side) but their sizes were steadily going down and by the time of the 100YW (when the reasonably effective archers appeared on the continent) they were pretty much useless as a defense against the arrows and kept getting smaller ending up more or less as a support for a lance and even then probably mostly in the tournaments. Heavy plate armor proved to be quite adequate as a protection and allowed to use the two-hand swords when fighting on foot. In the Eastern Europe with a greater exposure to the archers the pattern was exactly the same even if the plate was not used up to the same degree. Actually, it seems that just a padded coat was considered an adequate protection.

Then, again, European Knight was not a functional copy of a mounted samurai so looking for the parallels is not very productive.

OTOH, European infantry with the pole arms (starting from the Flemish and all the way to the Renaissance) did not use the shields so here is your parallel with Japan. :)
 
Top