Ted, I think the sources you posted are written as fables from folklore.


"And if we are to believe their wonderful tales, it took a strong-handed man to use an ancient bow. That of Hidesato, a tenth-century hero, required the strength of five men to pull it. He, however, sank an arrow five feet in length up to the feather into the iron forehead of an enormous centipede, a fabulous creature that carried in each claw a flaming torch. When the arrow pierced its brain, the lights went out and the monster fell to the earth with the noise of thunder. Another renowned warrior shot one night at what he thought was a tiger; on visiting the spot the next morning he found his arrow embedded several inches in the solid rock."

"Their books abound in stories of marvelous feats with the bow and of miraculous escapes. The arrow turned aside, or breaking in the air, or cut in twain with the sharp sword while in flight, or caught in the hand and returned with deadly aim by an expert bowman. The famous Go-go-ro, of Kamakura, in the siege of Tori-no-uni, is said to have received an arrow in his left eye; without stopping to take it out, he shot a shaft in reply that killed the enemy who had wounded him."

It depends on their arms.
It is a superstition that the katana is samurai's arms for a long time.
The sword was said in about the 12th century that it was useless in battle.
Samurai's main arms were longbow and spear.
It became a gun in the 16th century.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Ted, I think the sources you posted are written as fables from folklore.

I think you're right about that. But I used the examples to show that the longbow were powerful, long range weapons. This was in reaction on the piece that Wikipedia said on the topic. Imo that piece wasn't ver accurate and as you know, foklore is often based on a truthful story.

All of this fails to take into account the ground and reason for fighting. On open neutral ground I would side with the samurai owing to their attitude. But place the fight in Europe with the Europeans defending kith and kin and I would side with their Europeans getting the upper hand. Nothing happens in a bubble.

Off course is this a major influence on the fighting spirit of the men. But I am trying to rule out all these influences. What matters is: skill, techniques, equipment, spirit and prowess. The field is equal to all. No home advantages etc, just plain fighting a battle with an equal starting point.

The attitude of a soldier is a great equalizer. More so than any weapon.

As far as zeal goes it can't all be attributed to the Samurai.
I'm sure European medieval knights were just as fanatical.If not more so than their Eastern counterparts.
Convinced that God and Jesus were on their side and knowing if they fought well (European martial arts were highly effective) that they would surely enter heaven would make them equal in attitude and ability.
The Europeans better armour,better weaponry and MUCH heavier horses would easily tip the balance in their favour.

Originally Posted by sven hassell

The Europeans better armour,better weaponry and MUCH heavier horses would easily tip the balance in their favour.

The heavy armour also has it serious drawbacks; rememder how Barbarossa came to his end!
The sword things is somewhat dubious.

Comparisons with European swords

It is a commonly-encountered article of faith that katanas are intrinsically superior to European swords. This belief is frequently bolstered by roleplaying games that assign superior statistics to katanas, and also by many movies. However, these claims are largely based on misunderstandings about the manufacture and role of European swords, and comparing the schools on their worst examples instead of their best.
Because Japan was an iron-poor society, making a sword was an inherently expensive undertaking; the supply of swords was limited, and so it was in the smiths' interest to make the most of the materials they could afford. Europe also had superlative swordsmiths; Toledo steel swords from Spain are one example of legendary quality swords from outside Japan. However, the greater availability of iron made it practical to produce cheap, low-quality weapons in large quantities. Where Europeans had the choice between expensive good swords and cheap bad swords, Japanese had the choice between expensive swords, somewhat less expensive swords, or none at all.
Some European swords were also designed for different modes of combat. The katana's sharpness makes it an excellent cutting weapon. Katana are capable of damaging armor to a degree and even today Shinkendo masters perform the ancient helmet cutting ceremony. In this light, the different characteristics of certain European swords are due less to the limitations of their makers than to the requirements of their use. Attempting to establish the superiority of the one weapon over the other is ultimately meaningless without first defining the circumstances in which they are to be compared.
At the same time, many European sword types from the very beginning of the history of the sword, through the medieval period and the renaissance to the 20th century were designed for the same combat modes as Japanese ones, fighting against lightly-armored or unarmored infantry. Styles that relied on a single longsword for both offense and defense were well known - see e.g. Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch[2] - and disparities in weight have been greatly exaggerated; both longswords and katanas typically weighed between 1.0 and 1.5 kilograms (2-3 pounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

If I am right he says: The Europeans could match the quality of the katana's or even exceed it. But because they had more steel, they choose more swords of lesser quality... At least that's how I understand it. So the katanas' were of better quality. The European smiths could make excellent weapons, but they didn't.
So will the heavy horse tip the scale in the end?

Aye, me uncle talked of it, how in 200 hundred years no army had withstood a charge from 'eavy 'orse. Lucky for yoooou lightning flashed from me eyesss and balls of fire from me arse.

Originally Posted by Ted

The heavy armour also has it serious drawbacks; rememder how Barbarossa came to his end!
The sword things is somewhat dubious.

[b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

If I am right he says: The Europeans could match the quality of the katana's or even exceed it. But because they had more steel, they choose more swords of lesser quality... At least that's how I understand it. So the katanas' were of better quality. The European smiths could make excellent weapons, but they didn't.
So will the heavy horse tip the scale in the end?

In answer to this Ted I think YES.
So far we have these arguments that make a Samurai superior.
1)Attitude,fanatical belief and bushido code.
2)Training and skill,martial arts armed and unarmed
3)Weapons,finer quality swords

And in the European corner we have:
1)Attitude,also fanatical and a moral religious code that makes them unafraid of death.
2)Training and skill