Seriously, why the fuck didn't the Japanese use shields?

>>1865661
Because they had movable barricades instead,

Also archery does not lend itself to a shield, the sode on their armor originally evolved from shields, it was more convenient to have small shields on their shoulders they could angle at enemy horse archers while they kept shooting

>>1865661
All their weapons are designed for two hands

>>1865661
Why would you need a shield if you could dodge arrows?

>>1865679

Movable barricades arent versatile enough to render shields obsolete. They had to be set up, the men had to stay behind them, and it took time, energy, and manpower to actually move them.

They certainly adapted their armor to be more protective from projectile fire in the absence of a shield, but the supplementary protection that shields provide are too valuable to simply ignore. There had to be a concrete reason for it.

>>1865681

Two handed weapons are not nearly as common as a one handed weapon-shield combination because keeping the soldier alive was far more important than being able to land more powerful blows. Again, there had to be a reason why the japanese would sacrifice protection like that.

>>1865686

Kek.

>>1865795
>Two handed weapons are not nearly as common as a one handed weapon-shield combination because keeping the soldier alive was far more important than being able to land more powerful blows. Again, there had to be a reason why the japanese would sacrifice protection like that.
Why would the Japanese care about the Ashigaru (litterally peasants)?

>>1865840
that's the point, they didn't, therefore their weaponry evolved in absence of the shield, and also their handy and unique armor was a kind of shield in itself.

>>1865795
I gave you a reason, the vast majority of easily medevil Japanese soldiers were archers, even on foot most carried bows. The sode were better for this type of warfare than shields because you could keep firing.

Shields fell out of popularity at exactly the time Japan transitioned from a large state military to small bands of professional warriors.

>>1865840

As individuals they wouldnt. But as a group they were important because they made up a large part of the army. I'm serious when I say every other culture used shields extensively. Aztecs, Zulus, aborigines, arabs, berbers, franks, phoenecians, and pretty much everyone else. Even for the peasants and the levies.

>>1865851

Flat armor segments are not terribly uncommon elsewhere, although the japanese armor pieces were apparently quite large. It only covers the sides of the body, not the front like a shield would. A lot of the time, projectile points actually penetrate a shield, but dont reach the body because they get lodged in the wood. If it hits armor, it could still cause serious damage because of armor's proximity to the body.

>>1866099

Plenty of archers used shields. They just strapped them to their forearm. And if bows were so common and projectiles were relied upon, why didnt infantry have shields to protect themselves from the archers???

I have to figure this out. I refuse to give up.

>>1866099
>>1866841
Honestly, I think this is the most non-baity answer you're going to get.

File: 1462589415319.jpg (184KB, 800x515px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 800x515px

>>1866841
a small shield strapped to the forarm would not be much bigger than a sode and would hamper shooting, Japanese armor itself was quite capable of protecting most of the vital ares.

why didnt infantry have shields to protect themselves from the archers???

Infantry was a very small part of Japanese warfare, that is the infantry was mixed in with the horse men to support them, when they had to fight without horsemen they would usually used fortified positions or positions that were otherwise hard to access on horseback, otherwise they were almost always overrun and slaughtered by the more maneuverable horsemen.

While injuries were rather common, the death toll itself tended to be a bit on the low side

File: 1426989815920.jpg (289KB, 1280x791px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1280x791px

>>1865661
1. The Japanese did use shields.
2. When armour became more protective and the military more professionalised, people abandoned general purpose infantry shields in favour of two-handed weapons also in Europe. Shields weren't generally to be found outside of specialised roles. The golden age of infantry shields was the Early Middle Ages period.

>>1867096
They look like island chinks

>>1865661
>Implying a blade folded over 1000 times cant be used for defence

Samurai primarily fought in one-on-one battles and were highly trained so that they could cut arrows down in flight with their katanas.

>>1867451
>implying shields would stand a chance against superior japanese steel meme

Shields are a form of dishonor.
A honorful samurai faces the challenge of death instead of hiding from it.

>>1865661
Oh for fuck's sake, the japanese had personal shields earlier in their history. This is easily found with minimal efforts on google.

They fell out of style by the Sengoku era because two handed weapons became prevelant, mainly bows, guns, and spears. Shields evolved into large barricades that were carried around and used to blow missle fire.

Shields fell out of use for the same reasons and around the same time they did in Europe.

>>1867539
I like the last part of your last sentence.
Whenever I study Japanese history, I see that they have developed an equivalent of European history and culture, and also, arround the same time.
You mentioned the shield thing, but another aspect of that could be, for example, that Japan started conquering territories and industrialized arround the same time as Europe too.

>>1867546
They also developed gun tactics around the same time but independent of Europe and economic theory of I'm not mistaken.

I know Nobunaga and Shingen both made efforts to revamp the tax system and ban monopolies

>>1867552
I am slowly becoming a weaboo.

>>1867569
At last you see the light