Japanese shields

[JodelDiplom]

I don't think war profiteering works on a dibs calling system. I sure wouldn't like to be trying to pull platemail off of a corpse in the heat of battle so that another noble didn't take it first.

Yeah right, because whatever you can steal from villagers (food? clothes? a few animals? some coin?) is so much more valuable than that slain warrior's equipment, for which he paid the equivalent of a several year's wages, and which is now just lieing there on the battlefield for anyone to grab.

Armor and weapons are also, like, 100x better portable than the cattle or goats you might get at the village. They are the best thing you could loot, aside from a coin hoard. Why would those things NOT be the #1 loot items (okay, #2, after coin and jewelry) to bring home from a war?

 

[Herbert West]

Yeah right, because whatever you can steal from villagers (food? clothes? a few animals? some coin?) is so much more valuable than that slain warrior's equipment, for which he paid the equivalent of a several year's wages, and which is now just lieing there on the battlefield for anyone to grab.

Armor and weapons are also, like, 100x better portable than the cattle or goats you might get at the village. They are the best thing you could loot, aside from a coin hoard. Why would those things NOT be the #1 loot items (okay, #2, after coin and jewelry) to bring home from a war?

Do you really, honestly think that looting happens DURING the battle?

 

[Plank of Wood]

Yeah right, because whatever you can steal from villagers (food? clothes? a few animals? some coin?) is so much more valuable than that slain warrior's equipment, for which he paid the equivalent of a several year's wages, and which is now just lieing there on the battlefield for anyone to grab.

Armor and weapons are also, like, 100x better portable than the cattle or goats you might get at the village. They are the best thing you could loot, aside from a coin hoard. Why would those things NOT be the #1 loot (okay, #2, after coin and jewelry) to bring home from a war?

Is this actually based on historical fact or is this just another thing you're assuming based on your giant misconceptions of logistics and warfare? War isn't a MMO. You can't just "pick up" someone's armour and weapons immediately in the middle of a battle once you've killed them, not even if you've killed them in this fabled single combat thing you seem to think totally war is based around.

You said it yourself, coin and jewellery was worth a lot more. Where would you get those things? Stealing from settlements over the course of a whole campaign. If you're Roman or Viking, you could take some towns as slaves too; under the Marian Reforms legionaries were practically paid in slaves, which were worth far, far more than a dead gaul's moustache-guard.

And even without that considered, it still doesn't even remotely make sense that the entirety of warfare and tactics is shaped by people wanting to ragekill the enemy and steal their socks.

Also, ignoring everything else that's everyone's said and only replying to one point doesn't make you somehow less wrong, you know.

But what do you do with other arm instead? from what I can tell:
a. you can use it, along with the other arm, to hold a two handed weapon. This offers even less protection compared to a shield, especially against projectiles.
b. you can wield a parrying dagger, which is better defensively, but still not as a good as a shield.
To me, these two options don't seem to prolong combat survivability compared to a shield.
Also a shield can be use it offensively, during a charge for example and to bash an opponent away during one-on-one combat.

Well, from what I read, two handing a really, really long spear was a good defence against a cavalry charge because it keeps them as far away from you as possible, and was good at attacking as you could poke the enemy from far away without the being able to retaliate if they didn't have a similarly long polearm. It didn't protect them from arrows, but by that point Japanese strategy had tended towards cavalry and away from archers (which apparently we have the mongols to thank for).

That being said, sometimes the norms of combat aren't always the most efficient possible equipment and strategy used in the best possible way in that context - it could be that not using a shield was prevalent in Japan simply because it had become an unquestioned norm of combat.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

Somebody mentioned that carrying a shield is clumsy and makes one hand useless.

It is true when we talk about shields that are strapped to one's hand. This sentence is not true for shields that have only one handle to hold from, such as ancient roman shields or medieval round shields.

Round shields were almost offensive weapons. One could protect an area that is times larger than one could with the shield that is strapped to hand. But the offensiveness of a shield like this came out in 1vs1 not in formation battle.

[video=youtube;RzTsGYFzMLY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzTsGYFzMLY[/video]

In conclusion I must say that perhaps japanese the RNG of tech didn't favor shield in Japan.

 

[Arilou]

The shield was mainly a tool for formations. By itself, a shield was a heavy and clumsy addition.

Hence the famous greek phrase: "Come how with your shield or on it." Since the first thing a fleeing hoplite would ditch would be the shield, since it's all but useless unless you're in formation.

 

[Arilou]

Somebody mentioned that carrying a shield is clumsy and makes one hand useless.

It is true when we talk about shields that are strapped to one's hand. This sentence is not true for shields that have only one handle to hold from, such as ancient roman shields or medieval round shields.

Round shields were almost offensive weapons. One could protect an area that is times larger than one could with the shield that is strapped to hand. But the offensiveness of a shield like this came out in 1vs1 not in formation battle.

In conclusion I must say that perhaps japanese the RNG of tech didn't favor shield in Japan.

Even vikings spoke of "shieldwalls". So it's not as if it was solely used in classical times.

Heck, look at police with thier riot-shields: They're clearly most useful as part of a formation.

 

[Plank of Wood]

I was wondering when that video would crop up again. It's a really good one.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

Even vikings spoke of "shieldwalls". So it's not as if it was solely used in classical times.

Heck, look at police with thier riot-shields: They're clearly most useful as part of a formation.

Dude!

You are implying that I implied implications that I did not really imply.

I just told that a round shield was also sort of useful in individual combat.

 

[DarthJF]

Not exactly my strongest topic, but the use of shields seems to have ended when the samurai class started to appear.

Samurai themselves started as mounted archers using two handed bow and their armour was designed to give protection against bows, so they wouldn't really need a shield, nor be able to carry one either. Infantry on the other hand were largely equipped with two handed spears (or bows), which probably was to make fighting enemies on horseback easier. Japanese warfare seems to have centered around the mounted samurai with less importance on infantry to infantry melee, thus making shields less important.

 

[Boblof]

Do you really, honestly think that looting happens DURING the battle?

If you read the Illiad there are actually tons of descriptions of how the Greeks and Trojans have little tug o' wars over the corpses of slain heroes (rich warriors) in the midst of battle and describes how, if the enemies of the slain hero win the tug, the corpse is stripped naked (such as Patroclus). I always considered that to be a description of looting that would have been recognized by Homers readership.

 

[Plank of Wood]

If you read the Illiad there are actually tons of descriptions of how the Greeks and Trojans have little tug o' wars over the corpses of slain heroes (rich warriors) in the midst of battle and describes how, if the enemies of the slain hero win the tug, the corpse is stripped naked (such as Patroclus). I always considered that to be a description of looting that would have been recognized by Homers readership.

Some historians have argued that the fighting style in the Iliad isn't based on how Greeks actually fought at the time, but how the Greeks imagined how more ancient Greeks fought. A lot of the armour and weapons described in the Iliad didn't exist at the time of it's supposed writing, but were used thousands of years earlier. It's comparable to how people in the 16th century would see a fight scene in King Arthur. Not that it's completely impossible that people fought over the corpses to deny the enemy from capturing and shaming them, but the fighting in the Iliad is supposed to be a lot more brutal and gory than the real life scenes that would inspire it.

Also, in the Iliad people's livers fall out when you stab them in the chest, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually, the historicity of the Iliad is an interesting topic and I wonder why we don't have a thread about it yet.

 

[toroltao]

But what do you do with other arm instead? from what I can tell:
a. you can use it, along with the other arm, to hold a two handed weapon. This offers even less protection compared to a shield, especially against projectiles.
b. you can wield a parrying dagger, which is better defensively, but still not as a good as a shield.
To me, these two options don't seem to prolong combat survivability compared to a shield.
Also a shield can be use it offensively, during a charge for example and to bash an opponent away during one-on-one combat.

If you use two arms to hold a sword, the sword is going to have more impact and force behind it than a one armed stab or swing. With two arms it is much easier to parry and knock aside a weapon held with one arm. Of course you are right that shields can also be used offensively and is technically useful in a one on one situation. However in what situation is anyone ever going to fight one on one? Thus the usefulness of a shield is fairly limited unless it is used in a formation such as a "shieldwall". When a single person or even two or a handful charge out with shields, they are liable to attack from above, behind, the sides, and below. In almost no circumstance will a shield ever protect the entire body, hence armor and helmets. By opting to choose a shield over carrying a larger or more efficient weapon, the wielder sacrifices arm strength. Holding a weapon with one hand is far more tiresome than with two. A shield is not some sort of force field. A shield hit with an arrow is going to bruise and hurt you and the same goes with other sorts of impacts like sword swings. This is why they slant it to the side and let the sword slide off rather than meet it head on. If armor can serve the same purpose as a shield, it is better to wield a larger and heavier sword and swing harder.

Not exactly my strongest topic, but the use of shields seems to have ended when the samurai class started to appear.

Samurai themselves started as mounted archers using two handed bow and their armour was designed to give protection against bows, so they wouldn't really need a shield, nor be able to carry one either. Infantry on the other hand were largely equipped with two handed spears (or bows), which probably was to make fighting enemies on horseback easier. Japanese warfare seems to have centered around the mounted samurai with less importance on infantry to infantry melee, thus making shields less important.

This would make sense unless you look at China where shields also became less prominent after the Warring States era.

If shields were so useful, then why did the super large scutum go out of use? It provides the most area covered and is capable of bashing and protecting.

Surely if it provided such a benefit in combat then it would have lasted throughout the ages rather than see its use diminish to nonexistence.

 

[Plank of Wood]

If you use two arms to hold a sword, the sword is going to have more impact and force behind it than a one armed stab or swing. With two arms it is much easier to parry and knock aside a weapon held with one arm. Of course you are right that shields can also be used offensively and is technically useful in a one on one situation. However in what situation is anyone ever going to fight one on one? Thus the usefulness of a shield is fairly limited unless it is used in a formation such as a "shieldwall". When a single person or even two or a handful charge out with shields, they are liable to attack from above, behind, the sides, and below. In almost no circumstance will a shield ever protect the entire body, hence armor and helmets. By opting to choose a shield over carrying a larger or more efficient weapon, the wielder sacrifices arm strength. Holding a weapon with one hand is far more tiresome than with two. A shield is not some sort of force field. A shield hit with an arrow is going to bruise and hurt you and the same goes with other sorts of impacts like sword swings. This is why they slant it to the side and let the sword slide off rather than meet it head on. If armor can serve the same purpose as a shield, it is better to wield a larger and heavier sword and swing harder.

You're right, but there's also a lot more to it than that.

The most common weapon wasn't the sword, but the spear - they were good train peasants in and could easily be adapted from farming equipment, and had the added benefit of being very hard to attack head on if you had enough of them. In order to hold a spear with one hand, you have to hold it exactly at the centre of balance in order for it to have as much range as possible, which meant much of the spear's length was wasted for the sake of proper balancing. The Hoplites got away with this in part because they added a counterbalance to the blunt end of the spear, so it was possible to have extremely long spears that they didn't need to hold halfway down the pole, but they were vulnerable to being broken. This had the further issue of meaning that you couldn't really swipe with the spear, only stab. Cavalry also used spears in the form of lances, but they were used a different way.

When you hold a spear with two hands, you can hold it as a pivot rather than in the centre of balance, making far longer polearms possible (they got as long as 25ft in some places), as is what happened in Switzerland and with Japanese infantry. You could also slash and block with a two handed polearm (which lead to the Japanese adding shinguards in their cavalry, because bladed spears had become such a problem), rather than just stab.

 

[Boblof]

Some historians have argued that the fighting style in the Iliad isn't based on how Greeks actually fought at the time, but how the Greeks imagined how more ancient Greeks fought. A lot of the armour and weapons described in the Iliad didn't exist at the time of it's supposed writing, but were used thousands of years earlier. It's comparable to how people in the 16th century would see a fight scene in King Arthur. Not that it's completely impossible that people fought over the corpses to deny the enemy from capturing and shaming them, but the fighting in the Iliad is supposed to be a lot more brutal and gory than the real life scenes that would inspire it.

Also, in the Iliad people's livers fall out when you stab them in the chest, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually, the historicity of the Iliad is an interesting topic and I wonder why we don't have a thread about it yet.

I thought it was quite the opposite? The Iliad features phalanxes as the main way infantry fight, and infantry warfare is the most prominently featured type. That was how greeks fought when Homeros lived, not how they would have fought in the Trojan war if it indeed took place int he bronze age. The only thing that struck me as not being of Homeros period strictly speaking was the chariots, but then he didn't seem to know what they were supposed to do so in the Iliad they mainly act as a way of transporting the heroes from the camp to their place in the phalanx where they carried on to fight on foot ^^

 

[icedt729]

Somebody mentioned that carrying a shield is clumsy and makes one hand useless.

It is true when we talk about shields that are strapped to one's hand. This sentence is not true for shields that have only one handle to hold from, such as ancient roman shields or medieval round shields.

QFT- the hoplite shield used what was called an Argive grip, and was only adapted for use in a phalanx. Shields with a boss and handle were hands-down superior for any other form of fighting, hence why the Romans used shields with argive grips when they still fought in the phalanx and adopted shields with handles once they switched over to maniples. When the Greeks moved away from classical phalanxes they too switched to shields with handles, like the thureos or pelta.

Anyway, regarding Japan and east Asia in general- large pavise-type shields were widely used, it was just personal shields that were rare. If people knew how to make something but chose not to use it, that's generally an indication that they didn't consider it worthwhile. In feudal Japan we can clearly see that their primary weapons were all two-handed- naginata, spear and bow. Dropping shields was a conscious decision to trade the physical protection of the shield for the protection of longer reach, and for those who could afford armor and swords, the added offensive options of a two-handed weapon were valued over the (mostly superfluous) protection of a shield.

 

[Plank of Wood]

I thought it was quite the opposite? The Iliad features phalanxes as the main way infantry fight, and infantry warfare is the most prominently featured type. That was how greeks fought when Homeros lived, not how they would have fought in the Trojan war if it indeed took place int he bronze age. The only thing that struck me as not being of Homeros period strictly speaking was the chariots, but then he didn't seem to know what they were supposed to do so in the Iliad they mainly act as a way of transporting the heroes from the camp to their place in the phalanx where they carried on to fight on foot ^^

The Iliad was weird. They talk about using "silver studded swords" and the like, which were found in settlements a thousand years older than the Iliad. You are quite right, it's influenced by how Greeks understood how warfare worked, but always was underpinned by exaggerated feats of heroism and the semi-exotic nature of the Trojans. It's also notable that the earliest references to the Iliad have it arise just before phalanx warfare became widespread, though - and that there isn't really a single author of the Iliad either. Thought to be honest, I'm not quite sure if it's accurate or not.

 

[Boblof]

The Iliad was weird. They talk about using "silver studded swords" and the like, which were found in settlements a thousand years older than the Iliad. You are quite right, it's influenced by how Greeks understood how warfare worked, but always was underpinned by exaggerated feats of heroism and the semi-exotic nature of the Trojans. It's also notable that the earliest references to the Iliad have it arise just before phalanx warfare became widespread, though - and that there isn't really a single author of the Iliad either. Thought to be honest, I'm not quite sure if it's accurate or not.

Agreed.

What I tried to argue was just that on the subject of looting it might well be that people did have little skirmishes on the battlefield over the looting rights of a well equipped warrior (and it does make sense, good armour and swords must have been far more valuable than what you could normally scrape together by looting a farmstead). It would seem to me as if the actual fighting in the Iliad is pretty much based on contemporary styles of fighting (even if the equipment and so on is exotic, and the duels are more gory and flashier for the sake of good drama) and then I could very well imagine that the accounts of fighting the enemy over the armour of dead rich guys, which is something mentioned over and over and over again, might be something that, like the phalanxes, was taken from contemporary life rather than some half mythological oral tradition.

 

[Arilou]

Not exactly my strongest topic, but the use of shields seems to have ended when the samurai class started to appear.

Samurai themselves started as mounted archers using two handed bow and their armour was designed to give protection against bows, so they wouldn't really need a shield, nor be able to carry one either. Infantry on the other hand were largely equipped with two handed spears (or bows), which probably was to make fighting enemies on horseback easier. Japanese warfare seems to have centered around the mounted samurai with less importance on infantry to infantry melee, thus making shields less important.

The interesting point is that apparently japanese cavalry was kind of crappy. (not enough really good pasture)

 

[icedt729]

The interesting point is that apparently japanese cavalry was kind of crappy. (not enough really good pasture)

They had small horses and not all that many, which is probably a reason for why cataphracts in the Chinese, Korean or steppe styles never really caught on there. Horse archery was a pretty big deal, though.

 

[toroltao]

They had small horses and not all that many, which is probably a reason for why cataphracts in the Chinese, Korean or steppe styles never really caught on there. Horse archery was a pretty big deal, though.

Chinese, Korean, and Mongol horses are all really small. In fact most East Asian horses are, although it doesn't seem to have stopped them from armoring them up in true cataphract style.

Xianbei Cavalry:

http://i.imgur.com/hfHp9k5.jpg?1

Song Dynasty Cavalry:

http://i.imgur.com/oBgf7ZF.jpg

Ming Dynasty Cavalry:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Departure_Herald-Ming_Dynasty.jpg

I'm not sure if Japanese horses were any smaller.