History Main / ShieldsAreUseless

* ''VideoGame/KanColle'': As Ise (a battleship converted to a hybrid carrier, and thus suffering some DamnYouMuscleMemory) finds out, this goes double when you're trying to use a ''flight deck'' as a shield.

** Sniper Joes are shield-toting enemies you'll find in many of the classic ''VideoGame/MegaManClassic'' games. Their shields are quite effective at blocking even fully charged buster shots, but are useless against [[OneHitPolykill weapons that go through enemies]], like the Elec Beam. Similarly, [[SpellMyNameWithAnS Mettool/Metall/Mettaur]] hide under hard hats, and there are weapons that can destroy them while they're hiding.

* ''LightNovel/ACertainMagicalIndex'': When Touma Kamijou tries to rescue Misuzu Misaka from Skill-Out, at one point, the Skill-Out thugs try to shoot him. He protects himself with a riot shield. Though it blocks most of the bullets, the last one somehow punches through the shield and nails him in the side.
* Both PlayedForDrama and heavily lampooned in ''LightNovel/TheRisingOfTheShieldHero'':

** ''VideoGame/EldenRing'': Normal Soulsborne thinking is that shields are a subpar option compared to mobility. When fighting Malenia, Blade of Miquella, they ''really are'' useless, as in it's nigh-impossible to win against her while using a shield-based playstyle. Malenia will heal any time she lands a melee hit on the player, and it doesn't matter if the hit did no damage, so trying to fight her by blocking instead of dodging her attacks will lead to her quickly regenerating all the damage you hit her for- and she's a DamageSpongeBoss even ''without'' the lifesteal.

* The businessman's briefcase shield, however, is no match for the mighty VideoGame/MadKarateMan's skills!

* ''TabletopGame/YuGiOh'': Many cards have effects that destroy monster in Defense Position. Some of those have artworks that feature broken shields.

* both PlayedForDrama and heavily lampooned in ''LightNovel/TheRisingOfTheShieldHero'':

** The majority of Melromarc feels this way about the Shield Hero, due to the beliefs of [[CorruptChurch The Three Heroes Church]]: which preaches that The Sword, Spear, and Bow Heroes are all [[GodInHumanForm Constantly-Reincarnating Gods]] meant to save them from "The Devil Of The Shield". It is only some time after the other Three Heroes managed to constantly mess things up that [[HeroWithBadPublicity Naofumi]] manages to undo that the public begins to doubt the claims made by the Church, [[spoiler:resulting in The Church and their Pope to try a coup d'etat to overthrow the nations' Royal Family and replace it with their rule, while also killing the "Three False Heroes" and "The Devil of The Shield" to prove their faith is true.]]

* In ''VideoGame/TalesOfSymphonia'', Kratos and Zelos can equip shields. They don't actually do anything except add a few points to the defense stat.
** Actually, the shields can occasionally deflect insignificant projectile attacks that happen to land directly on their hitbox. ''VideoGame/TalesOfPhantasia'' (the first game in the series) had Cless, whose shield showed up on his sprite even when he didn't have one equipped, and could sometimes negate enemy attacks if he wasn't moving.

* Carrying over from the late medieval era, early modern European warfare saw extensive use of armor but an almost complete absence of shields. Three factors were responsible for this. First, munitions plate armor became comparatively cheap to manufacture and all grunts could buy at least a breastplate if they wanted, massively decreasing the relative value of a shield. Second, the infantry's primary weapons were invariably two-handed (either a pike, a halberd, or a firearm; sometimes two-handed swords and two-handed axes were also used). Third and most importantly - guns very quickly became the only ranged weapon type in use. Shields were very useful for blocking blades, javelins, darts, arrows, and bolts, but bullets could rip right through them like they weren't there ([[https://i.imgur.com/8pD1LNK.jpg the firearms of the era]] averaging over 100 mm of wood penetration at 30 meters; most shields were in the range of 5 to 9 mm thick). Thus they were deemed not worth carrying, especially as the timeline went on and battles were increasingly resolved by shooting. Some very brief exceptions such as the Spanish rodeleros existed, but these were quickly replaced by men bearing halberds/poleaxes. Theoretically, shields would still be an advantage on the rare occasion that things did degenerate into hand to hand combat where most soldiers were using their one-handed sidearm swords (e.g. in forts, urban areas, or forests), but these didn't happen often enough (and the advantage wasn't big enough) to justify the shield's existence.

*** During the First Dacian War, the Romans found that the Dacian infantry was armed with the falx, a heavy scythe-like sword that could easily get through the helmets and plate armor they used at the time and quickly ruin their shields, allowing the Dacians to secure a honorable peace. When the Dacians broke the peace, however, [[ItOnlyWorksOnce the Romans were equipped with reinforced helmets and shields and chainmail and scale armor (also reinforced) that resisted the falx]], [[CurbStompBattle leading to a series of devastating Dacian defeats]].

The fact that fiction doesn't quite know what to do with shields may have to do with there being fewer historical sources (especially [[UsefulNotes/HistoricalEuropeanMartialArts European ones]]) describing how to use them, and the fact that they weren't included in the classical fencing tradition which inspired Hollywood {{Flynning}}. There are other problems too. Matt Easton (''WebVideo/ScholaGladiatoria'') notes that it's more difficult to train actors to use a weapon and shield at the same time compared to just a weapon, and that large shields have an annoying tendency to block line of sight while a fight is being filmed. Furthermore, decades or even centuries of TheCoconutEffect have gotten audiences to consider the crossing of blades to be the most exciting aspect of a sword fight, and the fact that shield fighting reduces blade-on-blade contact risks making it look confusing or boring to them. For these reasons, it may be tempting to portray shields as useless so that the main characters (and by extension, their actors) have an in-universe justification not to use them.

The fact that fiction doesn't quite know what to do with shields may have to do with there being fewer historical sources (especially [[UsefulNotes/HistoricalEuropeanMartialArts European ones]]) describing how to use them, and the fact that they weren't included in the classical fencing tradition which inspired Hollywood {{Flynning}}. There are other problems too. Matt Easton (''WebVideo/ScholaGladiatoria'') notes that it's more difficult to train actors to use a weapon and shield at the same time compared to just a weapon, and that large shields have an annoying tendency to block line of sight while a fight is being filmed (see for example [[https://youtu.be/VgUDDdQWA4Q?t=688 this video]] shared by Roland Warzecha). Furthermore, decades or even centuries of TheCoconutEffect have gotten audiences to consider the crossing of blades to be the most exciting aspect of a sword fight, and the fact that shield fighting reduces blade-on-blade contact risks making it look confusing or boring to them. For these reasons, it may be tempting to portray shields as useless so that the main characters (and by extension, their actors) have an in-universe justification not to use them.

Historians of combat such as [[WebVideo/ScholaGladiatoria Matt Easton]] have pointed out that it's more difficult to train actors to use a weapon and shield at the same time compared to just a weapon, and that large shields have an annoying tendency to block line of sight while a fight is being filmed. When you watch videos of historical recreations like [[https://youtu.be/VgUDDdQWA4Q?t=688 this one]] from Roland Warzecha, you'll notice that large center-gripped shields can make it hard to see what's going on between the fighters at certain angles, and that's without getting into JitterCam or close-ups. Since shields are of limited use for Hollywood {{flynning}}, it may be tempting to portray shields as useless so that the main characters (and by extension, their actors) have an in-universe justification not to use them.

To be fair, note that in most fantasy / fantastic settings, a shield is indeed of a ''much'' more limited use than in real life, pretty much for the same reason shields are not widely used in warfare in real life today: lots of dangers that are too fast, accurate or powerful to deflect them with a hand-held piece of something hard. Be it a sniper (with a bow or rifle, no matter), a mage who can just unleash fire, cold and lightning (wish you could buy a rubber-coated shield, perhaps?), or just a dragon's tail and a giant's club, the dangers of truly heroic scale will take much more than a shield to defend against.

** The other Three Heroes believe that "Shielders are useless" in a fight based off of videogames they have played. And are later caught flat-footed when Naofumi; the "Useless" Shield Hero was able to solo a later Boss Fight that the three of them were struggling for hours with that they all think he somehow cheated (clearly they've never played MMOs or spent any amount of time with any [[StoneWall Tank]] [[LuckilyMyShieldWillProtectMe Players]]).

* In ''Film/{{Hero}}'', Flying Snow and Broken Sword fight through the entire imperial guard single-handedly, slicing through their shields like cardboard.

* The heavier your armour is, the less defense a shield would give you. With the invention of full suits of plate armour, knights stopped carrying shields because they [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q were already so heavily protected]] that a shield was little more than an extra encumbrance. Compare the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_shield kite shield]] of the early Middle Ages to the considerably smaller [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heater_shield heater shield]]. It also meant that the extra swinging power of the off hand was needed to penetrate your ''enemy's'' full plate with your weapon.

* Carrying over from the late medieval era, early modern European warfare saw extensive use of armor but an almost complete absence of shields. Three factors were responsible for this. First, munitions plate armor became comparatively cheap to manufacture and all grunts could buy at least a breastplate if they wanted, massively decreasing the relative value of a shield. Second, the infantry's primary weapons were invariably two-handed (either a pike, a halberd, or a firearm; sometimes two-handed swords and two-handed axes were also used). Third and most importantly - guns very quickly became the only ranged weapon type in use. Shields were very useful for blocking javelins, darts, arrows, and bolts, but bullets could rip right through them like they weren't there. Thus they were deemed not worth carrying, especially as the timeline went on and battles were increasingly resolved by shooting. Some very brief exceptions such as the Spanish rodeleros existed, but these were quickly replaced by men bearing halberds/poleaxes. Theoretically, shields would still be an advantage on the rare occasion that things did degenerate into hand to hand combat where most soldiers were using their one-handed sidearm swords (e.g. in forts, urban areas, or forests), but these didn't happen often enough to justify carrying the things.

* Carrying over from the late medieval era, early modern European warfare saw extensive use of armor but an almost complete absence of shields. Three factors were responsible for this. First, munitions plate armor became comparatively cheap to manufacture and all grunts could buy at least a breastplate if they wanted, massively decreasing the relative value of a shield. Second, the infantry's primary weapons were invariably two-handed (either a pike, a halberd, or a firearm; sometimes two-handed swords and two-handed axes were also used). Third and most importantly - guns very quickly became the only ranged weapon type in use. Shields were very useful for blocking javelins, darts, arrows, and bolts, but bullets could rip right through them like they weren't there. Thus they were deemed not worth carrying, especially as the timeline went on and battles were increasingly resolved by shooting. Some very brief exceptions such as the Spanish rodeleros existed, but these were quickly replaced by men bearing halberds/poleaxes. Theoretically, shields would still be an advantage on the rare occasion that things did degenerate into hand to hand combat where most soldiers were using their sidearm swords (e.g. in forts, urban areas, or forests), but these didn't happen often enough to justify carrying the things.

* [[InvertedTrope Inverted]] in many LARP games, because shields are usually not easily destroyable and they are typically much lighter than historical shields. In systems with "spell packets", however, they ''do'' make the wielder an easy target for spells.