Originally Posted by roshan

1. The katanas could thrust no doubt, but were the katanas better then european cut and thrusts or rapiers? The answer is clearly NO, due to the katanas point and curve.

2. Again, read my post. Europeans did not only use crowssbows but they also had great longbows.

3. Please read my edited post. This is what I said: "A battlefield european armor would weight around 60 pounds. Japanese armors ranged from 55 to 77 pounds. European armors were also stronger then Japanese ones. In fact during the 16th century the Japanese noted quality of Italian and Flemish armors which they imported from the spanish and the portuguese. European breastplates and helms were incorporated into Japanese armors and these were called nanban gosuko." European armors were good enough that the Japanese actually began to use european made parts and incorporate these into their native armors. If you want to know more aout this then read "classical fighting arts of japan" by Serge Mol. It is you who needs to do some reasearch and get some actual knowledge of history. European armors were not bulky. In fact due to their sleek design(the armors tended to stick close to the skin and follow the curves of the body unlike japanese suits), they hardly inhibited the mobility of the knights.

4. My point was that if the Japanese had their short wakizashis, then the Europeans also had their short swords. I am not stretching anything, I am pointing out the facts.