16th century Japanese warfare is superior to medieval warfare

I have a couple contentions as to why in a battle the medieval forces would triumph. C1. Disunity in the Japanese forces. My opponent mentioned the two main groups of warriors present in feudal Japan: ninjas and samurai. In Japan, the ninjas hated the samurai and in fact, were employed to kill samurai. Ninjas were nothing more than assassins. Samurai and ninjas distrusted and hated each other. "Ninjutsu developed as an opposing force to the samurai code of bushido." Whoever could afford to hire ninjas would do so. Since we are pitting Japan against basically all of Europe it can be assumed the European powers could better afford to hire Ninjas whose expertise in the use of poisons, assassinations, sneak attacks, and spying would completely kill off the Samurai leaving the country basically unopposed. Since paying off your enemy to make them work for you was a common practice in European medieval warfare it is an aspect of medieval warfare and can be used in this situation. A samurai's code of honor leaves them vulnerable to the Ninja. Ninjas are known as Samurai killers for a reason and they would be bought by the European's deeper pockets. The two facts the ninjas could both kill the Samurai and the Samurai could not utilize the ninjas on their side of the battle would be a detriment. (1) Ninjas are mercenaries, Europeans have deeper pockets, therefore, ninjas would fight for the Europeans as they can better afford to pay them. C2. Rebellions in Japan. Since this is taking place in the 16th century we must keep in mind the rebellions that would preoccupy the samurai. The rebellions are known as Ikkï¿½|-ikki and took place between the 15th and 16th century of feudal Japan. These were armed revolts of "peasant farmers, Buddhist monks, Shinto priests and local nobles, who rose up against samurai rule in 15th to 16th century Japan." How can the Samurai pose an effective threat when they are preoccupied with defending their country from internal affairs? The European forces would take advantage of this disunity and rebellion by invading during the rebellion. This effectively means the Japanese forces are splintered between the internal and external and any hopes they would have of a successful defense would be destroyed. The rebellions may even team up with the Europeans with the thinking that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." (2) C3. Samurai V's. Knight I personally believe this would be a draw. Each are bound by their respective codes of honor, chivalry and Bushido, to only fight an enemy, who can hold their ground, one on one. This means knights and samurai would be fighting each other. Both my opponent and I can make the assumption these warriors are both in excellent physical shape. They both have above average strength (the knight more so than the Samurai simply put because the knight would be a "heavier" soldier), above average agility (the Samurai more so than the knight), and each have the best technology of their respective cultures. Now here's the problem, excluding anything like tripping and variables that cannot be factored, the knights armor will not be able to be pierced by the Samurai's sword, simply put the katana will not be able to do any damage. On the flip-side, the knight most likely will not be able to hit the samurai as they are more agile and would dodge any attacks by the knight. This will be a draw. C4. The Longbowman. This is the medieval sides biggest strength. Range. In numbers, Long bowmen were MORE powerful than knights and they are always in large numbers. Knights had no protection against longbowmen, because of the use of bodkin arrows, even with armor heavier and stronger than that of a samurai. While the samurai may be more accurate with bows. The long bowmen could fire from farther away, they could pierce a knights plate armor from 250 yards away killing or wounding the knight: look at what happened at Crecy, Agincourt and Poitiers, English Longbowmen were the ones would brought victory. Firing between 10 and 12 arrows a minute longbowmen could absolutely decimate a force of samurai, who had lighter armor than knights, no matter how large before these samurai could even get a chance to attack a knight. The samurai, bound by their code of honor, would never retreat. Without the samurai, Japan is basically defenseless. The samurai, and any forces with them, would be decimated before they even got into range to attack. (3, 4) Samurai vs Longbowman. Longbowman would win. C5. Navy against navy a) Greek fire Medieval navies utilized Greek Fire. Which was a incendiary which could not be put out at the time. Japanese ships were made out of wood. If even one canister of Greek fire hits a Japanese ship it will sink. b) War ships with cannons that could fire broadside This is a major factor in naval warfare. Firing all your cannons at one target simultaneously can cause tremendous damage to the opposing side. c) Torpedoes In 1275, Arab inventor Hasan al-Rammah of Syria, created the first torpedo. It ran on "water with a rocket system filled with explosive gunpowder materials and had three firing points" (5). It was extremely effective against ships. As time went on, the European navies slowly adopted this weapon into their own systems. The Japanese navy would have no chance against a weapon like this. Medieval v. Japanese Navy. Medieval will win. 1. http://asianhistory.about.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.middle-ages.org.uk... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...