Feudal Japan: Where the Heck are the Shields?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Chef_of_Cadia**

I'm looking through Feudal Japan rule sets and I realized that you never see Japanese warriors with any sort of shield. To any of you history buffs out here, is this just Hollywood or were there no shields used in combat in Japan?

**Oldmike**

They used shields in the early periods
In the time popularized in media they were not used.

**CthuluIsSpy**

I believe it has something to do with equipment.

Japan warfare during that time depended heavily on two handed weapons, such as polearms and bows. One could not use shields with two handed weapons effectively.

For all the romanticism behind the katana, it was actually the samurai's sidearm; a samurai's primary weapon was either the bow, the tanegashima (japanese matchlock) or polearm type weapon.

Even then, the katana was designed to be used with two hands.

Note that my knowledge is incomplete, and I could be totally wrong.

**infinite_array**

Stolen from AsiaExpert over on r/AskHistorians:

Depending on how broadly you want to define shield, samurai might have used shields more than many think.

These [see below] were used fairly routinely throughout the centuries of Japanese warfare, even as other kinds of shields were phased out. They were used a great deal during the Sengoku Era, especially during sieges and even more so once firearms were introduced.

That being said these pavise were definitely not as ubiquitous as the run of the mill shield in other parts of the world, even as close as China.

This is due to two major differences in the way Japanese warfare evolved as we begin to enter the era when samurai were most prominent, which is starting in the 11th - 12th century all the way up to the end of the 16th and very beginning of the 17th century, which by then the Edo Period had been established and nation wide peace reigned for hundreds of years.

It is due to the difference with their weapons and the change in organization during combat.

At the beginning, we have the Heian Period. During this time, battles and warfare were nearly always fought between very small, dedicated forces who followed protocols and rather peculiar rules of combat. The procedures for engaging in combat were fairly ritualized.

This is in stark contrast to the crush and brutality of battle during the Sengoku Era in the 16th century.

It is here that we begin to see the pronounced trending toward individual combat as opposed to a focus on ranks and formations. This partly has to do with the great emphasis on personal strength and skill within both the warrior culture as well as incentive in promotion and climbing the social ladder.
It's much easier to show everyone (and to prove) what a badass warrior you are when you don't have to compete for the kill with 20 other men.

As we move on into the Sengoku Era, war has become much more brutal, widespread, and all consuming. It's not longer just the professionals who go to war, but all the able bodied men as well.

This is where organized formations become important again, because of the massive influx of recruits and attempts by commanders to maintain their tenuous control on chaotic battles. But even then, their formations and organized tactics do not reach the level of precision that one would see in a well drilled phalanx.

Japanese military doctrine during this time still placed a great amount of confidence in the strength of the individual. In a sense, the Japanese military thinkers see formations as a tool for those who cannot manage themselves in a fight without strength of numbers. The best warriors, the elites, will always engage in single combat, where they can draw out their full potential.

Now, this doesn't mean that they didn't help one another or use tactics that utilized advantage of numbers when an opportunity presented itself. If 3 red guys corner a loner from blue, the red guys won't just leave because they want their own dancing partners.

But in general, Japanese soldiers would not advance in lockstep and fight as a cohesive unit once battle was joined.
They would go out in search of an opponent(s) and simply duel it out. Shields are arguably most effective when used jointly in a solid, well drilled formation.

The other reason is the style in which they used their weapons as well as the weapons themselves.

KingofAlba has done a great job in covering the reasons why a shield would not be handy.

Spears were the primary weapon for the samurai in melee, not the katana.

Even assuming they used the katana, it's extremely unwieldy to use the average katana in a single hand. Now this is not about the weight, exactly. Katana weighed in at aprox .7 ~ 1.5 kg across the board, basically exactly the same as any other medieval sword.

The key here is the balance of the katana. Most were made with a two hand grip in mind, and the balance was done accordingly.

Soldiers would have been taught to use their katana in a two hand grip and when striking the movement they used primarily was a slashing motion that pulled back towards the body, aimed at gaps and weaknesses in the armor. This sort of cutting was the most efficient attack with a katana and a shield would most certainly get in the way of that.

As for their spears, they were also taught to use them in a two hand grip. Those that used the longer yari would have most likely engaging in a spear wall. Shorter yari were used on horseback and shorter still would have been for close, individual combat. These would have been used in a two hand grip as well.

The style of attack with a yari would have involved a great deal of leaping and rolling around, parry, close, and strike. The huge range of motion is probably key here. A large shield would only get in the way of the Japanese style of spear fighting.

I guess the thing to take away from this is that a shield was seen as obtrusive and got in the way of moving around freely for the style of fighting that the Japanese did, particularly with spears.

With the adoption of firearms, pavises on the battlefield came back into style in a big way but hand held shields were still not considered anymore useful or viable.

**Kilkrazy**

Shields, meaning handheld protective devices rather than static pavises, weren't used during the Samurai era.

One reason is that for centuries the principal weapon was the bow, shot from horseback, which obviously is incompatible with wielding a shield.

When the bow started to lose importance, and infantry became more prominent, two-handed weapons like pole arms and heavy swords became the first choice for combat, again precluding use of a shield.

**Traditio**

I found it interesting that the article says that a big reason why samurai didn't use shields was because of their use of the spear. Primary arm: spear; secondary arm: katana.

It never occurred to them to take those spears, couple them with really big shields and form phalanxes?

The Greeks and Romans used that to significant effect.

**infinite_array**

Well, its the difference in fighting ethos. For Greeks and Romans, it was all about unit cohesion - working together, covering the guy next to you with your sheild, knowing the guy on your other side would be doibg the same for you.

For the Japanese, it was all about individual prowess and movement.

**Traditio**

infinite_array wrote:
Well, its the difference in fighting ethos. For Greeks and Romans, it was all about unit cohesion - working together, covering the guy next to you with your sheild, knowing the guy on your other side would be doing the same for you.

For the Japanese, it was all about individual prowess and movement.

I don't think we can really stop there, though.

Why did the Greeks and Romans value that fighting ethos?

Because it worked. The Romans were a highly efficient and successful fighting machine. To a very real extent, so were the Greeks.

The Spartans easily could have had the same "ethos" as the Japanese (because of the excellence of each warrior), but instead opted for the phalanx.

**Oldmike**

One thing to remember is has different environment and even resources. Let alone values then the west then there's the difference in numbers of people.

**Jefffar**

Traditio wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Well, its the difference in fighting ethos. For Greeks and Romans, it was all about unit cohesion - working together, covering the guy next to you with your sheild, knowing the guy on your other side would be doing the same for you.

For the Japanese, it was all about individual prowess and movement.

I don't think we can really stop there, though.

Why did the Greeks and Romans value that fighting ethos?

Because it worked. The Romans were a highly efficient and successful fighting machine. To a very real extent, so were the Greeks.

The Spartans easily could have had the same "ethos" as the Japanese (because of the excellence of each warrior), but instead opted for the phalanx.

The major reason for this is the primary arm of the Samurai was initially the Bow. Rather than being heavy infantry who closed with the enemy to destroy them, they rode circles around them and riddle them with arrows. For an idea how effective that can be, see what happens when the Romans faced the Huns. The short answer is the Romans could only close for battle when the Huns screwed up or chose to accept a close battle (which means they screwed up).

The open order of the Samurai was backed up by formations of Ashigaru armed with spears, bows or muskets. However, much like feudal Europe, the few elite warriors trained from birth and carrying the best equipment set the tonne of battle. In action they issued challenges and fought duels with other enemy champions at the start of the battle. As the battle developed they sought each other out in clashes of arms that would become celebrated for centuries after the death of the participants.

But it was the Ashigaru who bore the brunt of the battles. They suffered the most casualties and were the ones who actually took and held ground. They are pretty much ignored however and instead we focus on the Samurai.

**locarno24**

Even assuming they used the katana, it's extremely unwieldy to use the average katana in a single hand. Now this is not about the weight, exactly. Katana weighed in at aprox .7 ~ 1.5 kg across the board, basically exactly the same as any other medieval sword

Indeed. Mass-wise they're similar to a hand-and-half broadsword, but the European sword is much more effective as a single-handed weapon - prominent quillons (cross-guards) help you parry with one hand and prominent quillons and pommel can be used as an improvised knuckle-duster. You'll notice these are also features lacking from a Katana.

The Katana is primarily a cutting weapon (hence sharp along most of its length), leading to its intimidating reputation as an extremeties-remover. The broadsword would only be sharp at the tip, and is, for most of its length, essentially an aerodynamic steel baseball bat that cuts with sheer weight. The upshot, though, is that whilst the katana is more lethal when you've got room to swing it properly, the broadsword is a damn sight more useful in a close-pressed melee where you don't. Which makes sense, as Samurai had no place in a massed infantry brawl and didn't do 'proper' siege-work very often - where a Japanese castle was taken it was generally by escalade, not breach, so you didn't need to pour your assault force through a single narrow weak spot.

The major reason for this is the primary arm of the Samurai was initially the Bow. Rather than being heavy infantry who closed with the enemy to destroy them, they rode circles around them and riddle them with arrows. For an idea how effective that can be, see what happens when the Romans faced the Huns. The short answer is the Romans could only close for battle when the Huns screwed up or chose to accept a close battle (which means they screwed up).

And the Parthians, too. The Romans generally didn't like the middle east and steppes for this reason - it supports light cavalry.

Don't assume they didn't have any, of course. We fixate on the Legion Cohort for the same reason we fixate on the Samurai - they're the iconic unit. But you had plenty of roman cavalry and light troops. It's just that they were the reverse of Feudal Japan; for the Samurai, light missile cavalry were the elites and heavy infantry the sword-fodder. For Rome, legion cohorts were the elites and light cavalry were auxilia units (because horses are bloody expensive to maintain and hence an army paid for by the state had to be built around infantry). Hence why they generally succeeded when they didn't chase after people - they'd either set up a fortified camp and dare you to take it off them, or march to your town and burn it to ash and you can stop them if you dare.

It's a pretty damn effective plan, and only ever really came unstuck against the steppe nomads, as they didn't have any central point to attack, so all you could do was maintain a defence and kebab anyone who looked at you funny with a scorpion bolt.

Why did the Greeks and Romans value that fighting ethos?

Because it worked. The Romans were a highly efficient and successful fighting machine. To a very real extent, so were the Greeks.

Exactly.

In the case of the romans, the 'classic' roman legion appeared precisely because they weren't an elite warrior culture - the early legions were essentially greek hoplites with some slight change in wargear - but rather than self-equipped, high social rank citizen-soldiers, the post-reform legions were essentially 'guys off the street', recruited as a permanent, professional standing army, uniformly equipped and trained at the state's expense. This led to some compromises in battle tactics (because they had to be simple enough to teach to a body of men who shared no history with each other and for whom latin might be a second language) and little things you can pick out in wargear (the Lorica Segmenta - the classic 'legion armour' - is strapped-together metal bands which can be mass-produced and adjusted to fit a wearer, making it easier to issue in the right size*, and cheaper to make, than chainmail). It also saw one of the early instances of the 'Professional Senior NCO' being added to the chain of command as a counterbalance to the noble/political appointee captains and generals.

The Spartans easily could have had the same "ethos" as the Japanese (because of the excellence of each warrior), but instead opted for the phalanx.

Ethos-wise, they probably were. But 'fighting to show off' (which is a cynical and rather unfair description of samurai warfare, even if not completely inaccurate) only works if both sides do it. The Spartans (and Macedonians, and Romans) had a nasty habit of fighting other nations whilst at a serious numerical disadvantage - fighting in a tight block is one of the only ways effective to offset that. The other is mobility, and western Europe didn't really have the technology for really efficient skirmish cavalry at that time (large horse breeds, stirrups, cavalry bows)

* Although a few histories imply the infamous army "there are two sizes available: too large and too small" joke may have originated back in legion camps....

**Kid_Kyoto**

It is always risky to interject culture into a discussion like this and I recognize I'll be over generalizing.

I'm kind of in that dangerous valley where I know a lot about Japan, but I'm by no means an expert in this subject.

All that being said, the influence of Buddhism might be a factor here.

When i play a video game I engage in suicidal tactics all the time, breaking out of cover, launching all out assaults etc, hell just going into the dungeon/space station/beachhead in the first place is something I'd never do in real life. But in a video game, hey I have at least 3 lives and can always play again.

And for many Buddhist warriors the old bit about it's not if you win or lose it's how you play the game actually applies in real life. After all, they get another go round.

During WWII, long before desperation tactics like the Kamikaze and other suicide weapons, Admiral Yamamoto had to chastise his pilots to actually use parachutes. Many did not, because it was cowardly and they might be taken prisoner which is disgraceful.

And I know that Samurai adopted Buddhism because they saw it not as a path to inner peace, but as a way to shed their fear of death and their attachment to his world.

Even today kendo students are taught that hitting with spirit is the most important thing, and a hit can be disallowed if there wasn't enough spirit behind it.

So it is possible that the Samurai's reluctance to use shields is related to a reluctance to invest in their or their infantry's defense (cowardly, might lead to being taken prisoner and thus disgrace) and a firm faith that even in death a new life awaited them.

Also the Japanese were in a strange situation in that they fought a lot of wars (a LOT) but only against each other. Prior to the 19th C there were 2 attempted invasions by the Mongols, and one Japanese invasion of Korea and no other real foreign wars. Even the Europeans came in as traders and missionaries, not as invaders. So while the Samurai were deadly they were also hothouse flowers who fought people from the same culture, the same moral code, the same technology and the same language. They never really had to adapt to face foreign foes until the opening of Japan and the Meiji restoration.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm not 100% convnced by your Buddhism theory as it applies to shields (Buddhism is meant to be a pacifist religion, for one thing) but it is definitely true that the Japanese spent centuries fighting each other and weren't forced to change their methods by enemy action.

That said, shields mostly went out of use in Europe in the lat middle ages due to more effective armour and the need for two-handed weapons, and once gone they didn't come back, even though the sword continued to be a main weapon of cavalry for several hundred years.

**durecellrabbit**

The Japanese did invest in defence. If they could afford it they wore armour and continued to improve it over the centuries.

The Japanese did make changes to their military due to enemy action. One example would be the failure of the early Heian period military against the Emishi which ended state run conscription and marked the start of the bushi. They did develop new weapons and group tactics improved as they were able to field and train larger armies as well as campaign for longer.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Yeah, Samurai armor is actually really tough, despite its lack of metal.

The whole no retreat thing has more to do with martial honor and discipline than with buddhism, imo.

**Traditio**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not 100% convnced by your Buddhism theory as it applies to shields (Buddhism is meant to be a pacifist religion, for one thing) but it is definitely true that the Japanese spent centuries fighting each other and weren't forced to change their methods by enemy action.

That said, shields mostly went out of use in Europe in the lat middle ages due to more effective armour and the need for two-handed weapons, and once gone they didn't come back, even though the sword continued to be a main weapon of cavalry for several hundred years.

Not to mention guns. Guns helped kill the whole "hide behind metal armor and a shield" thing.

**Kilkrazy**

Armour for European infantry had died out by about 1700 AD, while cuirasses and helmets for heavy cavalry continued until the late 19th century. The Napoleonic cavalry cuirass was reasonably proof against musket balls but was too heavy for infantry to carry. It's not clear how much advantage the armour gave the cavalry in pure physical protection as opposed to morale.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not 100% convnced by your Buddhism theory as it applies to shields (Buddhism is meant to be a pacifist religion, for one thing) but it is definitely true that the Japanese spent centuries fighting each other and weren't forced to change their methods by enemy action.

Yeah lots of religions are meant to be pacifist.

I've been thinking that God's probably a really cool guy and it's just people who suck.

Anyway (as with all religions, philosophies and just about anything else) Buddhism has always been altered to serve the needs of society and politics. Among the Samurai 'freedom from attachments' was quickly changed to 'freedom from fear and pain'. Even among Buddhist Monks there was a strong martial culture. The good people of Kyoto lived in fear of the days the Sohei would come down from the mountains demanding tribute or they'd level the place.

And of course ritual suicide was a part of Japanese martial culture.

But Buddhism and the Samurai's general willingness to sacrifice their own lives would just one factor among many determining how they fought. I wouldn't pursue it too too far but I would say it influenced things towards offence and displays of martial courage over defense.

**jhe90**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Armour for European infantry had died out by about 1700 AD, while cuirasses and helmets for heavy cavalry continued until the late 19th century. The Napoleonic cavalry cuirass was reasonably proof against musket balls but was too heavy for infantry to carry. It's not clear how much advantage the armour gave the cavalry in pure physical protection as opposed to morale.

In English civil war, older but yes armour was used. There was a rare unit of cavalry clad in nigh full plate armour that cost a fortune, there chomandor had armour that withstood sustained attack by multiple musket shots at point blank, and lived unharmed.

Weighed in at 50-70 pounds, very heavy but capable of tanking musket fire.
Full armour was not practical but could be made.
Musket proof steel was very heavy and too expensive for everyday troops bar limited items.

**Chef_of_Cadia**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I believe it has something to do with equipment.

Japan warfare during that time depended heavily on two handed weapons, such as polearms and bows. One could not use shields with two handed weapons effectively.

For all the romanticism behind the katana, it was actually the samurai's sidearm; a samurai's primary weapon was either the bow, the tanegashima (japanese matchlock) or polearm type weapon.

Even then, the katana was designed to be used with two hands.

Note that my knowledge is incomplete, and I could be totally wrong.

I agree with you here, but I'm wondering why somebody didn't think "Hey, if I carry a smaller sword, I can use something in my other hand to block the other guy's blows and not die!"

**Ancestral Hamster**

For English-speakers interested in samurai warfare, permit me to recommend British historian Stephen Turnbull. He's consider the foremost authority on the samurai in the English language. However, try to borrow or buy one of his older books instead. A number of his more recent books are essentially cut & pastes of his older books, just covering a specific topic, such as siege warfare or the role of religion in the life of the samurai class. Since I do have some of his books, I've stopped purchasing them because I'm paying AGAIN for old material I already own.

Re: samurai warfare developing in isolation. Yes, that's an important point. Dr. Turnbull brings this up in relation to the Mongol invasion attempts. Initially, the samurai tried fighting in the tradition manner, i.e. calling out challenges and fighting personal duels. The Mongols came from a tradition of total war, so they simply shot the challengers down at range. The Japanese considered that treacherous and dishonorable, while the Mongols considered it practical. The samurai had to adapt, although once the Mongols were defeated, they went back to their style when fighting the Onin War (a domestic political dispute).

Kilkrazy wrote:
Armour for European infantry had died out by about 1700 AD, while cuirasses and helmets for heavy cavalry continued until the late 19th century. The Napoleonic cavalry cuirass was reasonably proof against musket balls but was too heavy for infantry to carry. It's not clear how much advantage the armour gave the cavalry in pure physical protection as opposed to morale.

Accounts from Waterloo imply the cuirassier armor was proof against musket balls at long and medium range, and of course was useful in a pure cavalry clash when it was sword to sword.

The Japanese branches of Buddhism are more militant than the Indian or Chinese branches. Basically, each time Buddhism spread further from India, it was changed slightly by its missionaries. Part of that translation difficulties, but some of it was deliberate pandering to make this alien religion more palatable to local tastes. For example, China places great importance on family ties, while Indian schools of Buddhism reduces the importance of family. As such, the Indian tradition was edited out of teachings in China. Similarly, the pacifist tradition was downplayed when Buddhism was first taught in Japan. That's the quick and dirty story. I have a 12 hour audio lecture series on Buddhism which goes into great detail on the differences, but that's probably more info than this thread needs or wants.

An interesting variant of Buddhism that developed in Japan is Jōdo Shinshū as practiced by the ikko ikki. Like some types of Christian fundamentalism, one could be "saved" simply stating one's belief, in this case, "Namu Amida Butsu" (All hail the Amidda Buddha). Other traditions of Buddhism emphasize moral & spiritual self-improvement, there was no easy short-cut like this. Also, the ikkō-ikki believed if they died in battle defending their faith, they would instantly go to paradise, much like the Islamic tradition of death in jihad. By no means was this a pacifist religion!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Yeah lots of religions are meant to be pacifist.

I've been thinking that God's probably a really cool guy and it's just people who suck.

Anyway (as with all religions, philosophies and just about anything else) Buddhism has always been altered to serve the needs of society and politics. Among the Samurai 'freedom from attachments' was quickly changed to 'freedom from fear and pain'. Even among Buddhist Monks there was a strong martial culture. The good people of Kyoto lived in fear of the days the Sohei would come down from the mountains demanding tribute or they'd level the place.

And of course ritual suicide was a part of Japanese martial culture.

But Buddhism and the Samurai's general willingness to sacrifice their own lives would just one factor among many determining how they fought. I wouldn't pursue it too too far but I would say it influenced things towards offence and displays of martial courage over defense.

Finally, for those interested in how Greek (and later Roman) warfare developed, please see The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece.

**chaos0xomega**

I will second Ancestral Hamsters book recommendation. If its good enough for war college professors, its good enough for me!

**Kid_Kyoto**

I studied Thurnbull in college and he really is good.

And while I cannot swear to its accuracy James Clavell's Shogun really does try to climb into the minds of Feudal Japanese and explain them to westerners. The book got much, much better when I figured out that the main Japanese character Lord Torunaga was really supposed to be Iesu Tokugawa, of course that only helps if you know who Tokugawa is.

And Hamster can you give the name of Buddhism series, I think it might be time for me to do a deep dive into Buddhism.

**Kilkrazy**

If you liked Clavell's Shogun it's well worth reading this book which is a history of William Adams who was the inspiration for the English character in Shogun.

http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-William-Englishman-Opened-Japan/dp/0142003786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461857070&sr=8-1&keywords=william+adams

Back to the topic, I think isolation from foreign influences is the main reason for not using shields, along with the importance of horse archery in early Samurai warfare.

**Ancestral Hamster**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And Hamster can you give the name of Buddhism series, I think it might be time for me to do a deep dive into Buddhism.

Certainly! Buddhism Taught by Professor Malcolm David Eckel Purchased from: http://www.thegreatcourses.com

Also from that same company: War and World History Taught by Professor Jonathan P. Roth.

**Eumerin**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

And while I cannot swear to its accuracy James Clavell's Shogun really does try to climb into the minds of Feudal Japanese and explain them to westerners. The book got much, much better when I figured out that the main Japanese character Lord Torunaga was really supposed to be Iesu Tokugawa, of course that only helps if you know who Tokugawa is.

I found out who he was by playing Koei's game "Nobunaga's Ambition 2".

And yeah, it's pretty clear that Torunaga is Tokugawa.

If someone wants a romanticized look at the Sengoku era, there are worse places to look than Koei's games on the topic. The older strategy games are purely strategy-focused. But the later ones (as well as the Samurai Warriors games) start adding in the option to play along in a "historical drama" that loosely copies the stuff that happened historically (allowing you to do historical things that pretty much never happen in the pure strategy games, such as Nobunaga and Tokugawa becoming allies).

**jhe90**

Shields, there not just for massed formation though.
Its a blunt weapon, solid and thick. Shock impact, and can be used to hide intentions for a split second.

Other uses that pure defence.

**Groundh0g**

I'll disagree with the Turnbull recommendations. He's the easiest author to find and has a lot of good plates in his Osprey books as far as painting guides go, but man, he recycles 95% of all his information each book release, and never ventures further than about an inch deep into any topic outside of dates and names. He doesn't use Japanese sources and doesn't appear to have read any new scholarly works on Japanese History since the 80s, and uses each book as an excuse to travel to Japan to take a couple of photos for his next book.

If you really want to learn about Japanese history and samurai warfare, I'd recommend Karl Friday, Thomas Conlan, and Jeffrey Mass. For a more general history, the dated but incredibly well written Samson three volume history of Japan is amazing.

As for shields, it all comes down to how war was fought in Japan vs other countries. In the pre-samurai era you had Chinese-styled military that fought in tight formation using shields and hand weapons. Wars were fought in Asia against other Korean/Chinese armies of the same general makeup.

When that system broke down most combat was domestic skirmishes between individual lords and their retainers, and most of it was not a fight to the death - war was heavily ritualized and rarely fought in close combat to the death, outside of brief periods of extreme conflict.

By the time massed troop formations had returned in the Sengoku period, firearms were prevelant and shields of no practical use, outside of pallisades to protect archers and gunners.

And please don't believe any of that bushido honour before death stuff - that's a product of the Edo period of peace. I can assure you all that there are plenty of example of samurai fleeing and acting dishonestly - hell, look at the history of the three major figures in the Sengoku Jidai, Oda Nobunaga ->Toyotomi Hideyoshi -> Tokugawa Ieyoshi. Each one either committed or ultimately found their house falling victim to the exact type of treachery that people don't associate with samurai. They were no different from any other culture in that regard.

EDIT: That last Tokugawa should be Ieyasu, not Ieyoshi... been reading up on the Bakumatsu lately, confusing my Tokugawa Ie's.

**Easy E**

I also have to disagree a bit with Victor Davis Hanson for the Western Way of War He is going to be a good starter, but as you dig into the detail more you start to realize where he is overgeneralizing with minimal evidence.