16th century Japanese warfare is superior to medieval warfare

Thanks thebomb for posting your argument Ninja I didn't say they worked as mercinaries to the daimyo and shogun, I said they worked for, but not for money they actually swore fealty to their daimyo. The ninja had a strict moral cod and would never work for an enemy of Japan during a time of war. I stated that ninja were mercinaries because it is the closest thing in the English dictionary to what they actually were. Ikkï¿½j ikki The rebellion was in the early 16th century where a group Of farmers and gardeners who tried to take a daimyo settlement and utterly failed. Shortly after they hired a group of ronin to fight the samurai occupants and that was a stand off. So the samurai govern negotiated with the leader and came to a truce. Unrest in europe In medieval Europe the amount of uprises was appalling and many lasted years do a lot of knights would be occupied. Samurai vs knight You said" if a samurai cannot pierce a knights armour that can do no damage". Your point has a very big if and there are over 32 types of samurai and any one of them can pierce an knight armour which where just plates locked in. You say a samurai couldn't find a chink in the knights armour during battle well your wrong. Not only are the chinks rather large Japanese martial arts has a base of perception samurai are known to look from the top of a mountain of a landscape for just a second and then turn around and paint it perfectly. It's true some knights had shields but they were heavy a pivot kick or a yuri no gama kick to the shield would put a knight flat on his behind because with his heavy armour and heavy shield not only is he off balance but is slow and easy to tire. Plus as you said a samurai is very fast. Medieval archery vs Japanese archery Despite what you believe there weren't that many longbow men in Europe but most had recurve bows which had much less range than a kyu(Japanese bow). An easy wak to combat the archers was to send the samurai with shields and the ikki ikko first in centerpied formation which would stop even bodkin arrows. These would distract the archers enough for the calvary to flank them and take them out. Navy I agree Greek fire would destroy the Japanese navy if it hit the deck but they were mostly aimed at the sides and when the sides she and as you were reloading the from mounted rotatary cannons should tear apart the massive target. Japanese warships were highly buoyant ships and the torpedos would do little damage and the damage they did could be repaired quickly. Calvary You say mounted knights were the tanks of the medieval. What are tanks but slow and there are only a small amount of tanks compared to infantry. The Japanese had many ways of defeating horseback warriors using the equivelantnof a pike is just one of many examples. Heavy armour Yes knights are extremely strong but samurai could easily turn thAt against the using the weight of Their armour to drag them to the ground where knights had no training. The samurai were definatly stronger than knights. The knights were just slow, clumsy and bulky they are like apes compared to samurai or senshi ninja. Army size I'm not saying all of combined europe is smaller but they would never combine forces and in fact I'm just saying that they travelled in small packs making them easy targets to pick off group by group. Armour and weapon quality I'm not saying they would just break but compared to a katana or a sec dayshi they would break with enough force. But you do have to agree they were slightly rushed when compared to Japanese armourers. Japanese katanas can not cut through a blade I'm not saying that I'm saying that they would snap the enemy blade because they are stronger and better made. Training The knights started strength and stamina training at 7 and started combat training at 13 also the difference in training time is pretty large. Japanese martial arts are so much better and have so much more technique than the brute bluntedness of the knight. Navy Im not saying their similar I'm just saying that they have roughly the same weight and speed Allies if you want to say that then you must count Portugal and Spain into Japans forces plus only half of the French army were warriors the others were cooks, cleaners and squires Movement Even Id each soldier carried his own weapons the army would still move slowly. I don't say Japanese warriors carried more weapons each samurai either had two swords, a yari and a sword or a kyu and a sword. Some even carried a Tao knife. Swiss pikemen and halberders The samurai and senshi ninja had much experience fighting this type of weapon and had many techniques for combatting it for example the halberd had a heavy tip so you slide your swor down the tip and thena downward shin gama would easily snap the halberd. The pike was mostly a stabing weapon so a samurai or senshi ninja would bait them into stabbing than and then seers and trap the pike between their arms and ribs and at the same time spinning and breaking the implement. Plus japan had piles to they could just do the same thing. The ikki ikko had soft front hard backs so that any thing that stabbed the shield would be trapped inside and unable to be pulled out without putting the shield down standing on it and yanking and jumping so a pile would get stuck a twist of the shield would disarm the opponent and then a stab with your spear would kill him and then a dash against the ground would break the head off the spear and leave you ready to go again. The ninja would just wipe out the army before they even attacked I wait for your reply