shields?

[Rogier]

I couldn't sleep last night and started wondering if there has ever been usage of shields in the japanese sword arts? (and don't just answer yes or no....)

[Chidokan]

I've seen some prints of a shield about the size of a european buckler, also musketeers are shown using pavises. I doubt the common usage though...

Tim Hamilton

[fifthchamber]

Hi Rogier,
As far as I know the only major use of shields by Japanese warriors was very early on in the Japanese history. I believe that the shields were roughly 4-5 feet tall, wooden slatted sections with a stand of some type behind it. The barriers were used to shield the forward troops from the arrow barrages used prior to major battles....
The Okinawan Kobudo also teach techniques using a type of small one handed shield but I know little about that, and it is'nt the JSA anyway...
I would also be interested in hearing about any kind of shield defense work in any of the Japanese martial arts...Other than what is above I have not heard of it before.
Abayo.

[Rogier]

well that was exactly the problem I haven't seen or heard much about the usage of shield in combination with the sword in the japanese arts. I was just wondering why they did create one and two sword styles and never something with a shield.

Wouldn't the usage of a shield be a great benefit (keep in mind I don't know that much about japanese sword arts.. only what I've read on the net and in books)

[Ka1yama]

A friend of mine who took an undergrad Japanese history class told me that the lower class who did not have armor would have sheilds instead. Also he added tghat these poorer class individuals mostly did archery in battles. Could another explanation also be that samurai had so much reverence for thier swords, making the sword thier main use for attack and defense; which would make sheilds not necessary?
Neil Stewart

[Jim London]

Hello,

Very condensed history version:
The primary/favourite weapon of the Samurai was the bow, not the sword. Specifically the kind used by the mounted archer. The modern kyudo bow is shaped as it is to provide a mounted archer with a long bow that would not interfere with his horse. Kind of hard to use a shield, ride a horse and shoot a bow. Hence no shields. Also the long Tachi is a horseman's sword, and really needs two hands. The shorter katana is a footman's sword and really only adopted by the Samurai as a latter creation. Some families cut their Tachi down to create katana as the Tokagawa Shogunate really set in.

The peasant and lower caste Samurai that were on foot may have on occasion had shields but again the long pikes were their most common weapons. Two handed and really, really, really long. These pikes are the most effective weapon for footsoldiers against mounted soldiers.

The reverence for the sword is fairly recent (few hundred years) compared to the bow (few thousand) and the Japanese being what they are (a little bit unwilling to change things :D ) (BG) the shield really never could catch on with the Samurai. Also when the peasant class was disarmed the sword really caught on as a symbol of the upper class. Very expensive items (on par with buying your house today) to the point where maintaining them for your descendants became very important.

Caveat: The above is a very condensed version (simplification if you will) of what would take about 40 pages with footnotes to fully discuss.

Jim London

[Jay Vail]

Rogier, I have three video tapes showing the use of the shield against the katana. One is from takenouchi ryu (available on budogu.com), the second is in the old but excellent documentary Budo, and the third is a tape purporting to be about sword and shield arts of Okinawa. In each it appears that a non-samurai who is resorting to the shield. In the first two films, BTW, the shield was buckler sized and was used much like a European buckler.

It was a bit of a surprise to see such shields used, because I had assumed that the Japanese did not rely on them.

[Stéphan Thériault]

Mr.Vail, I could be wrong, but I think wath you saw was a jingasai. This is the helmet worn by ashigaru, or foot soldiers. If you go to the site bellow, the fourth photo shows one. The fith one shows the ashigaru wearing it.

http://www.page-five.de/TENSHU/photos13.htm

By the way, when the japanese first came over from the mainland; I think about two thousand years ago; the soldiers were armed with a cuirass, a helmet, a straight double edge sword, a helmet, a short spear, and a large rectangular shield. About the same time period and armament as the roman legions.

[Jay Vail]

Stephan, In both the takenouchi film and Budo I saw the object(s) several times from several different angles. It was not a helmet pressed into impromptu service. They were most definitely shields of buckler size. The takenouchi version was made of wood and had a handle in the back. The Budo version was made of metal, was convex, and also had a handle in the bowl for gripping. The takenouchi version was used without a weapon in the other hand. The Budo version was used with the tanto. I suggest you see the tapes yourself.

I admit to being quite surprised at seeing them, for they were so unexpected. However, as I have recently begun a study of European martial arts, I am often struck with how surprisingly similar the combat arts of Japan and medieval Europe were in many respects.

[Daniel Lee]

The 'shield' seen in the koryu jujutsu tradition you mentioned is a pot lid (futa) pressed into service. Other schools use sandals, headbands and other make-shift weapons.

Isn't the shield featured in 'budo' part of the okinawa ko-budo of one of the masters, rather than mainland japanese ko-budo?

[wmuromoto]

As Daniel noted, the "shield" used in the BAB Japan video of the Takeuchi-ryu is a pot lid kata. Sort of like, geez, this crazy guy is attacking me with a sword when I'm eating my dinner, so I picked up the nearest thing at hand and whacked him in the cajones with it.

It's not like we practice this kata much. Ha.

Shields were called "tate," and "raising the shield" is known well enough that a Noh drama movement is called that, from raising up a shield in battle. But as others have noted, its use as a carried defensive tool was probably limited only to the first incursion of horse mounted warriors into Japan, with the kofun tomb building. Along with clay haniwa figurines depicting warriors with short double-edged swords, there are clay depictions of rectangular "shields" looking very much like classic Greek or Roman shields used in hoplitic and phalanx battles. If so, they were probably not used by the mounted warriors but by footsoldiers, and/or by the indigenous tribes that were supplanted by them.

As noted, hand carried shields were never really used from that point on because of the double-handed types of weapons used; the two-handled katana and the yari (spear) which, by the time of the Sengoku, reached impressive lengths...over 4 meters, in some cases. In addition, carrying all that junk plus wearing even a less bulky domaru weighed you down and from reading about the battles of the Sengoku Period, it seems that a lot of maneuverings, walking, running (in retreat), charging, etc. took place, so the less junk you had (remember, as an infantryman, you had to also pack your own food, supplies, etc.) the better, especially if you're running away.

The Japanese seemed to have set piece battle formations, but apparently were not as tightly packed as the Roman phalanx or Greek hoplitic spearsmen, where a one-handed spear was used with a shield for a bristling unit of men that could stop and defeat nearly anything thrown at it in the classical world. The Mongol invasion did force on them the use of more footsoldiers fighting in a more organized manner, but it wasn't until the Sengoku Period that I think real massed groups were used in any kind of real strategic formations worth much of anything, and here we had the use of very fast attacks, with horses at full gallop or spearsmen running headlong into each other. The long spears used two-handed, the running gait, and the smaller massing of men precluded the use of shields, so footsoldiers relied on their body armor and defensive counters with their weapons.

But one had to protect oneself against projectile weapons if caught in an open plain battle before the initial clash of arms, so temporary tate were used, rectangular in shape, that were raised up and stood up with wooden legs in the back, behind which you hid from arrows and gunfire. As soon as the initial volleys were absorbed, the footsoldiers could jump out from behind the tate and use two hands to wield spears and swords against an attack, or to run and attack the enemy.

The Sengoku Period is when the "classic" weapons of koryu budo were being defined, so therefore we do not have hand-carried shields in martial arts because they were not used; only those wooden barricades that were raised up on stands and then discarded when it came time for close combat. And in any case, shields, unless they were quite thick, and then being unwieldly to carry, would not have sufficed against muskets then in great use (and cannon...lest we forget that the samurai also began to use cannons as siege weapons).

Wayne Muromoto

[Kolschey]

Thank you, Mr. Muromoto. It's always a pleasure to hear your contributions.

Great thread, everyone!

[Daniel Lee]

I'd like to join you Krzysztof :) Thank you!

[Jay Vail]

A pot lid . . . could very well be. Since it is a video and the voice over is in Japanese, I will yield to those who speak Japanese, since the voice over may have explained what the thing was. It was used as a buckler would be used, however: to deflect the blade and to make strikes at the face, body, and groin. Most interesting.

As for the Budo film, it is true that the buckler in conjunction with the knife is used by an Okinawan bujutsuka and not a Japanese.

I did not mean to suggest that the Japanese used shields regularly (although I think someone commented that they used them two thousand years ago, which I believe is right, since I once saw a statute of a Japanese warrior carrying a shield dated to about a thousand years ago; very Chinese like, and I wondered why the Japanese had abandoned the shield and adopted the two handed sword instead). Rather, I meant merely to suggest that the concept of the shield was not unknown in that part of the world.

[leoboiko]

I am very curious to know how they used a headband in battle.

[Rogier]

thanks all for the information.... the questions I come up with when I'm awake at night.... next time I'll just wake my girlfriend and have fun ;)

[fifthchamber]

Hello Mr. Boiko..
In part reply to your question I have seen practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu using a type of Hachimaki or 'headband' that was loaded with a small metal disk placed on the forehead and under the wrappings...The Hachimaki was intended to be used as a form of attack (Headbutts?) and the metal disk provided a better way to use the head than keeping it bare...Although I have not seen any Y.S.R. kata with headbutt motions in yet...
I would guess that the headband worn by Mifune Toshiro in Seven Samurai was another way that they could be used in battle...Along with the Menpo it could have formed a fairly good defense against atemi...Less so with bladed weapons but thats life...;)
Hope that helps....Maybe others know a little more than myself on the subject and will post here...
Abayo.. :wave:

[Daniel Lee]

While the underlying tactics of ko-budo and modern generic self defence are clearly very different, Many of the make-shift weapons taught in koryu jujutsu have similarities with those found in self defense today (like the use bags, pens, belts etc). They are infrequently demonstrated to the public at demonstrations, but a study of modern self defence books will provide some good hints for you.

[J.C. Murphy]

Not to change the subject, but...if the tachi or katana developed for use on horseback, why are they two handed. I have heard one main explanation for them to develop as a curved sword; most calvary sabers are curved. That makes plenty of sense to me. What I cannot understand is why did they develop to be so long and heavy as to need two hands?

I have not spent very much time on the back of a charging horse, but is seems like you would need one hand to control the reigns. I have heard that you can control a horse with your knees, but it still does not seem very effective to try to use a two handed sword on horseback.

It seems like you would need a heavy sword to bash through armor, but isn't the ideal to find the enemy's weak spots.

Hoping for some good returns.

[Gmason]

With regards to the Shield, there is quite a famous Japanese, story which I think is almost in folk lore now, about a teacher who was attacked by his student whilst he was eating his dinner, and used the bowl and I think a spoon to defend/defeat he student.

There is also a famous wood block print of this encounter which I will try to find and post.

[fifthchamber]

Hello Mr. Murphy..
In response to your question;
"if the tachi or katana developed for use on horseback, why are they two handed?"
...I would say that the two swords are not the same. The Tachi was designed as a one-handed blade and can be used with either one or two hands gripping it depending on the situation..(I believe that the people behind Bugei.com have used the Tachi they sell in one handed Tameshigiri tests...At least it would seem that way from the website notes: www.bugei.com/phoenix.html ).
The Katana was not meant to be used from horseback as it was the weapon used by the foot soldiers originally and was adopted universally in the Sengoku period as the classic "Samurai sword"...However the two are quite different and are not meant to be used in the same fashion...The Tachi could be used on foot also and this may account for the length of the hilt...As a 'just in case' kind of design but could also be wielded one handed from horseback (Although the chances of killing an enemy with it, one who may have carried a Naginata/Yari or bow would probably have meant a lack of reliance on it or a tendency to rely on longer ranged arms in battle....).
I hope this helps the question anyway..;)
Abayo...
(Mr. Mason: Wasn't that Tsukahara Bokuden? Try looking in "A way to victory" by Hidy Ochiai...I remember it being in there I think..:cool: )

[rupert]

I don't think the Japanese had much of a cavalry history - probably because their horses were more like ponies and used more for transport. Including the transport of richer warriors of course. Rather, they'd practice archery from horses. I saw it done in a demo once in Tokyo. Maybe the swords were for when they fell off!

Rupert Atkinson

[fifthchamber]

Hi Rupert..
Actually the Japanese have a great 'Cavalry history'...Dating way, way back to the first emperors of the island. Admitedly, I would say that the emphasis was NOT on swordfighting from horseback and rather used Yari and the Bow and Arrow as primary fighting weaponry but the Japanese warrior is tied wholly to the horse.
For a more in-depth study I would suggest G. Cameron Hurst's "Armed Martial Arts of Japan" as it has a large amount of points on the use of the horse by the Japanese warrior in history, and some very good 'pointers' in general IMHO...In particular I remember the sections on the 'Votive tablets' called 'Ema' or 'Horse pictures' that were used in prayers and still are..The Haniwa statues also feature a wide use of mounted warriors and from them we can get an idea of exactly what impact seeing warriors in control of a beast and firing weapons at you while running would have had on the 'landed' fighters...There was an excellent sentance on this in the above book quoted from Jacob Bronowski ('The Ascent of Man');

"For the rider is visibly more than a man: he is head-high above others, and he moves with bewildering power so that he bestrides the living world. When the plants and the animals of the village had been tamed for human use, mounting the horse was a more than human gesture, the symbolic act of dominance over the whole creation. We know that this is so from the awe and fear that the horse created again in historical times, when the mounted Spaniards overwhelmed the armies of Peru (Who had never seen a horse) in 1532. So, long before, the Scythians were a terror that swept overthe countries that did not know the technique of riding. The Greeks when they saw the Scythian riders believed the horse and the rider to be one; That is how they invented the legend of the centaur. Indeed, that other half-human hybrid of the Greek imagination, the satyr, was originally not part goat but part horse; so deep was the unease that the rushing creature from the east provoked....We cannot hope to recapture today the terror that the mounted horse struck into the Middle East and Eastern Europe when it first appeared."

.....I would say that despite being smaller than the animals used in the above descriptions the early Japanese would have had the same impressions of the horse and rider in battle.
Indeed, the use of Ema dates back to the Heian period and the horse was a major part of festivals of the Nara/Heian periods onwards...Even today, displays of Yabusame (You mention above..) are still conducted for ceremonial events and cement the horse's importance to the Japanese, both in the past and still today.
The history of Japan is full of Cavalry battle, and the use of the horse is very much a central part of why the Samurai came into power as they did...
You could also read Dr. Karl Friday's 'Hired Swords' for a good understanding of where and how the early Japanese warrior became so very important to the country...Both books are essential reading for me!;)
Hope that helps some!
Regards.

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by J.C. Murphy
Not to change the subject, but...if the tachi or katana developed for use on horseback, why are they two handed.

The short answer to this question is that tachi were not developed for cavalry use:

The timing of the curved tachi's appearance--coinciding with the emergence of the bushi, who were mounted warriors--has led many scholars to link the shape of the early medieval tachi to the demands of cavalry warfare. The straight-bladed tachi of the Nara and early Heian periods, goes this argument, were developed for infantry usage and intended primarily as thrusting weapons. Swordplay from horseback, however, calls for slashing and cutting, rather than stabbing. Thus the curved tachi was introduced in response to a new style of fighting favored by a new order of warriors.

But the hypothesis that the medieval tachi was designed as a cavalryman's weapon ignores more evidence than it embraces. To begin with, it is premised on an inflated dichotomy between the style of warfare favored by the bushi of the late tenth and eleventh centuries, and those of their forebears. There was no sudden change in the importance of mounted warriors in the decades immediately preceding the adoption of the curved sword. Cavalry did not suddenly become fashionable during the mid-tenth century; Court military policy had been increasing its tactical focus on mounted warriors--and trimming back the infantry component-- of its armed forces since the 700s. By the mid-ninth century this process was already near complete: fighting men on horseback were the predominant force on Japanese battlefields. Thus the straight (chokuto) tachi of the Nara and early Heian periods must have been as much cavalrymen's weapons as were the curved tachi of the later Heian and Kamakura periods.

Reasoning from technological evidence leads to the same conclusion. Curved blades are inherently stronger and easier to cut with than straight ones. They are also easier to draw, and can therefore be made slightly longer. But these advantages are of as much value to swordsmen on foot as to mounted warriors. The construction of the chokuto, moreover, testifies that it too, was meant to be used as much for hacking and slashing as for stabbing.

The ideal design for a thrusting blade is straight, with both edges sharpened--the form of ancient and medieval Japanese spear blades. But Nara and Heian chokuto tachi were single-edged, a design better suited to cutting and chopping than to thrusting. The five-faceted cross-sectional shape of the chokuto also marks it as a cutting weapon. The simplest shape for a single-edged sword blade is triangular, tapering evenly from the back to the cutting edge. This design (hirazukuri) is an excellent silhouette for a stabbing blade--and was in fact the form applied to early medieval katana--but it puts a great deal of stress on the edge, if the weapon is used to cut or chop. Japanese sword smiths soon found, however, that the strength of the blade could be increased without losing sharpness, if it was forged such that the back four-fifths were shaped like a rectangle, with only the cutting edge shaped like a triangle (kiriha-zukuri). This was the design utilized in most Nara and Heian period chokuto, and in the earliest curved tachi. Still later it was discovered that the addition of ridges to the side and back, resulting in a six-sided cross-sectional silhouette (shinogi-zukuri), produced a lighter, more wieldy blade, without sacrifice of strength or sharpness.

Even more to the point, the written and pictorial record shows that while both the chokuto and the curved tachi may indeed have been cavalrymen's weapons, neither were cavalry weapons: there is not a single example, in any document, text or drawing produced before the thirteenth century that depicts warriors wielding swords from horseback. Throughout the Heian and Kamakura periods, bushi employed swords in street fights, and when unhorsed or otherwise forced to fight on foot, but seldom while mounted.

[rupert]

I remember reading that when the Mongols arrived, Japanese warriors were cut down by arrows as they stepped forward to proclaim their intention to fight as was their custom - one to one duels: state the name, record of victory etc, then fight. A slight cultural misunderstanding.

Anyway, if they are going to duel equally, it doesn't really matter, I suppose, whether they have shields or not, as long as both are equal. Western rapier fencers don't use shields either.

If their strategy for one on one fights influenced large scale battle strategy - then there would be a problem - especially since it was the bow, and not the sword, that was the early soul of the Samurai. If the above Mongol example is true, maybe it did.

Rupert Atkinson

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by rupert
I remember reading that when the Mongols arrived, Japanese warriors were cut down by arrows as they stepped forward to proclaim their intention to fight as was their custom - one to one duels: state the name, record of victory etc, then fight. A slight cultural misunderstanding.

Anyway, if they are going to duel equally, it doesn't really matter, I suppose, whether they have shields or not, as long as both are equal. Western rapier fencers don't use shields either.

If their strategy for one on one fights influenced large scale battle strategy - then there would be a problem - especially since it was the bow, and not the sword, that was the early soul of the Samurai. If the above Mongol example is true, maybe it did.



Actually, the idea that early bushi fought one-on-one duels is a myth as well--one that's been well-refuted by recent research in Japan (as well as my own, including my "Valorous Butchers" article in Japan Forum back in 1993).

The image of Japanese warriors being turned into pin cushions by laughing Mongols, while they searched for worthy opponents is one I've used in classes and such for years, as an example of how silly the idea of warriors calling out their resumes and pairing off to duel is. I used it in that context a few years ago, in a documentary for The History Channel--and the producers included it in the program, minus the "isn't it silly to imagine this could have happened" context. That may, in fact, be where you remember it from!

In any case, it's very clear that the Japanese did not fare badly, militarily, against the Mongols. For more on this, see Tom Conlan's In Little Need of Divine Intervention (Cornell, 2001).

[rupert]

Hey, I'm actually learning something on this thread.

As for horses: I once asked my Korean wife's father why people rarely tried to kill their local Japanese policeman - he had just told me there was just one per town in the country side.
Answer was: He had a horse. He struck fear into them. But bear in mind, the Japanese now had larger imported horses.

Rupert Atkinson

[fifthchamber]

Hi all.
Dr. Friday: Thanks for the information, it is always appreciated when someone actually puts an 'educated' post down and in this case has raised even more questions on the points you mention...
Is the view that you put across above accepted generally in Japanese education circles or is it one put forward more by western historians? I would imagine it would be hard work to convince some that Japanese history is not always as 'correct' as it could be, even more so in Japans case I would imagine what with the recent 'changes' to history in education there...
And would it be correct to say that rather than the losses due to the unknown fighting styles (ie; the name/lineage calling idea used by the Samurai mentioned above) employed by the Mongols it was more a result of a Japanese unpreparedness for the invasion forces first landings? If so, could that also mean that a large part of the 'success' in the second defense was due to an increase in basic coastal fortifications (And the help of the weather/Kami..)and a better knowledge of what was coming?
I would be interested in hearing about any difficulties in your putting this view forward and equally of any agreements found within the Japanese history communities..
Once again thanks for contributing to this thread, and for keeping me ticking over on these issues...
:rolleyes:
Regards.
Ben.

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by fifthchamber

Is the view that you put across above accepted generally in Japanese education circles or is it one put forward more by western historians?

The assertion that one-on-one dueling was not the normal pattern for Heian and Kamakura warfare (and my earlier point about curved swords not being developed for cavalry) has been made by several of the Japanese historians working on the subject this past decade--most prominently by Kondo Yoshikazu and Kawaii Yasushi--as well as by me. It's pretty well-accepted as the revised standard view at this point.

To date, though, I'm the only one who's argued that the practice of CV reading to sort out opponents is a also a literary fabrication. I made this point briefly in my "Valorous" article way back when, and in a couple of public lectures--and one publication--in Japan a couple of years ago. I also make an extended case (I'd like to believe a definitive one!!) against it in my new book on early medieval warfare (which should be going off to the press sometime this spring). Thus far the reception to this conclusion in Japan has been mixed. No one's offered a rebuttal yet; most responses I've heard have been enthusiastic; but there's also been some skepticism.

The bottom line, though, is that no reliable source for the Heian or Kamakura period mentions this practice. Warriors calling out their CVs and pedigres appear only in late medieval literary texts, composed decades after the fact by oral tale singers. Some earlier texts mention warriors calling out their names as they charge (nanori, the term earlier historians used to label the CV-calling bit), but it seems more rational to assume that this literally meant yelling their names, rather than the elaborate recitals of the literary texts.

[the Khazar Kid]

According to G. C. Stone's legendary Glossary of Arms and Armor Japanese shields included a small buckler or Te-date and a targe worn on the arm or Mochi-date.

The Timbei shield is well known in Okinawan arts. Most of the Chinese weapons including shields, swords, spears were taught by the early Okinawan masters of Chinese martial arts.

I have also heard of a "Tohai", this being a shield with a peephole in it, mentioned in Jennifer Lawler's "Martial Arts Encyclopedia". Not sure if this is Japanese, Okinawan, or other nationality. Has anyone else heard of these kind of shields?

Jesse Peters